TYPO's solution to the problems in Iraq

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Here it is...virgin fresh blog space to let us know your solution to the problems in Iraq, and the ramifications of your solutions....if you don't mind....

Thanks, I am sure I will learn a lot.

[typomaniac]

Ahhhh, nothing like the smell of fresh, virgin blog space in the morning. Except maybe for napalm...

Lesson One

Iraq is in a Civil War. Say it again with me, kids: Iraq is in a Civil War. It's been in a Civil War for several centuries, and only the tactics of someone like Saddam can enforce a ceasefire. America isn't good at these kinds of tactics, and we don't want to be.

The unfortunate reality is that thousands more Iraqis are going to die in this war before both sides tire of it - whether there is a US presence in the country or not. Having one means only that some Americans are going to wind up as collateral damage also.

Lesson Two

Terrorism is not a "war" that the US armed forces fight, nor has it ever been. Terrorism is a criminal action. Nothing more. The only reason our unelected president called it an "act of war" was to benefit the insurance industry.

Because terrorism is a criminal action, counter-terrorism must be police action. As several veterans here have already said, the military sucks at police action. Therefore, we need a completely different kind of counter-terrorist force on US territory, with as well-controlled and as airtight a border as we can get.

As for the rest of the world, it's up to them to tackle the terrorism problem in whatever ways they see fit. We'll share information with them, but we can't be their policemen, too.

[Kathianne]

Ahhhh, nothing like the smell of fresh, virgin blog space in the morning. Except maybe for napalm...

Lesson One

Iraq is in a Civil War. Say it again with me, kids: Iraq is in a Civil War. It's been in a Civil War for several centuries, and only the tactics of someone like Saddam can enforce a ceasefire. America isn't good at these kinds of tactics, and we don't want to be.

The unfortunate reality is that thousands more Iraqis are going to die in this war before both sides tire of it - whether there is a US presence in the country or not. Having one means only that some Americans are going to wind up as collateral damage also.
We'll say we 'give' you the argument above, (not really, but let's say for now we do).

Lesson Two

Terrorism is not a "war" that the US armed forces fight, nor has it ever been. Terrorism is a criminal action. Nothing more. The only reason our unelected president called it an "act of war" was to benefit the insurance industry.

Because terrorism is a criminal action, counter-terrorism must be police action. As several veterans here have already said, the military sucks at police action. Therefore, we need a completely different kind of counter-terrorist force on US territory, with as well-controlled and as airtight a border as we can get.

As for the rest of the world, it's up to them to tackle the terrorism problem in whatever ways they see fit. We'll share information with them, but we can't be their policemen, too.So if it's a criminal action, who are the policemen to bring them to justice? The Marines? Assuming that our borders are the issue, since it is what you bring up, the National Guard or ICE should be the policemen? Regardless of whom we place as policemen, how are they to differentiate between the innocents and the terrorists, through customs or illegally? Shoot all the Mexicans crossing illegally? Close the borders down totally to immigrants?

[typomaniac]

We'll say we 'give' you the argument above, (not really, but let's say for now we do).
So if it's a criminal action, who are the policemen to bring them to justice? The Marines? Assuming that our borders are the issue, since it is what you bring up, the National Guard or ICE should be the policemen? Regardless of whom we place as policemen, how are they to differentiate between the innocents and the terrorists, through customs or illegally? Shoot all the Mexicans crossing illegally? Close the borders down totally to immigrants?I'm actually in favor of coming very close to shutting down the southern border.

The main reason that Jorge Bush is so desperate to look the other way is that he has too many friends who want subminimum-wage Mexican labor.

Which this country can do just fine without, thanks.

[Kathianne]

I'm actually in favor of coming very close to shutting down the southern border.

The main reason that Jorge Bush is so desperate to look the other way is that he has too many friends who want subminimum-wage Mexican labor.

Which this country can do just fine without, thanks.

Excuse me, I thought this was about a solution, not GW?

[typomaniac]

Excuse me, I thought this was about a solution, not GW?Actual enforcement of US sovereignty on its borders WILL be a much more effective contributor the the solution than sending a bunch of troops to Iraq.

[Kathianne]

Actual enforcement of US sovereignty on its borders WILL be a much more effective contributor the the solution than sending a bunch of troops to Iraq.

I'm all for enforcement of our laws, most certainly regarding our borders. On the other hand, I disagree that the battle with terrorists would be alleviated by bringing our troops home.

[Gaffer]

So typo's answer is to close the borders and bury our heads in the sand. If we ignore it all long enough it will go away.

[glockmail]

Ahhhh, nothing like the smell of fresh, virgin blog space in the morning. Except maybe for napalm...

Lesson One

Iraq is in a Civil War. Say it again with me, kids: Iraq is in a Civil War. It's been in a Civil War for several centuries, and only the tactics of someone like Saddam can enforce a ceasefire. America isn't good at these kinds of tactics, and we don't want to be.

The unfortunate reality is that thousands more Iraqis are going to die in this war before both sides tire of it - whether there is a US presence in the country or not. Having one means only that some Americans are going to wind up as collateral damage also.

Lesson Two

Terrorism is not a "war" that the US armed forces fight, nor has it ever been. Terrorism is a criminal action. Nothing more. The only reason our unelected president called it an "act of war" was to benefit the insurance industry.

Because terrorism is a criminal action, counter-terrorism must be police action. As several veterans here have already said, the military sucks at police action. Therefore, we need a completely different kind of counter-terrorist force on US territory, with as well-controlled and as airtight a border as we can get.

As for the rest of the world, it's up to them to tackle the terrorism problem in whatever ways they see fit. We'll share information with them, but we can't be their policemen, too.

Waht's your proposed solution for lesson 1? Resurect Saddam?

Why is terrorism suddendly a criminal action? It has historically been treated as an act of war.

[typomaniac]

So typo's answer is to close the borders and bury our heads in the sand. If we ignore it all long enough it will go away.We don't ignore what goes on WITHIN our borders, you dork!

[typomaniac]

Waht's your proposed solution for lesson 1? Resurect Saddam?Laissez-faire foreign policy.
Why is terrorism suddendly a criminal action? It has historically been treated as an act of war.By any historical figure besides your semiliterate hero? :lol:

[Gaffer]

So typo wants to use the clinton stategy. Call the police, pretend it didn't happen and get a little while waiting for the next strike. :poke:

[typomaniac]

So typo wants to use the clinton stategy. Call the police, pretend it didn't happen and get a little while waiting for the next strike. :poke:I have no clue what you're talking about, but I like the part about getting a little.

[Gaffer]

I have no clue what you're talking about, but I like the part about getting a little.

You have recited clintons efforts against the war on terror while he was in office. I assume if one of our embassies gets bombed you will lob a few cruise missiles somewhere as well.

[Samantha]

You have recited clintons efforts against the war on terror while he was in office. I assume if one of our embassies gets bombed you will lob a few cruise missiles somewhere as well.Clinton got the first WTC bombers didn't he? They are sitting in jail right now aren't they?

Where's Bin Laden?

I don't think invading Iraq helped destroy Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Do you?

[manu1959]

Clinton got the first WTC bombers didn't he? They are sitting in jail right now aren't they?

Where's Bin Laden?

I don't think invading Iraq helped destroy Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Do you?

bin laden declared war on the US under Clinton....killed us citizens at bali hotels, kobar, us cole, nigerian embasies, streets of mogadishu....hmmmmmmm

[manu1959]

Clinton got the first WTC bombers didn't he? They are sitting in jail right now aren't they?



http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

In June 1992, Salameh's phone bill went through the roof, rising from $128.41 in May to $1,401.00 in June. Indeed, on June 10, Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, before his phone service was cut-off on July 9 for non-payment.8 The vast majority of these calls to Iraq were to his maternal uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had been number two in the "Western Sector," a terrorist unit established within the PLO after the 1967 war, when the PLO was based in Jordan. It operated in the area west of the Jordan River. Abu Bakr was arrested by Israeli authorities for terrorism in 1968 and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was released in 1986 and deported from the West Bank, whence he made his way to Iraq, where he came to work at the PLO office in Baghdad.

Although the content of these conversations is not known, it is likely that some of the conversations related to the exciting new enterprise in which Salameh had become engaged. And it is likely that Iraqi intelligence learned of the plot, either because Abu Bakr's phone was tapped or because Abu Bakr told them about it.

[glockmail]

Laissez-faire foreign policy.By any historical figure besides your semiliterate hero? :lol:

1. Before or after Saddam? If before, then continued support of Al Qeada by him. If after, then creation of a vacuum to be filled by those interested in doing harm to the US.

2. James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 42:
THE SECOND class of powers, lodged in the general government,
consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign
nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive
ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and
punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offenses against the law of nations...

[Gunny]

Ahhhh, nothing like the smell of fresh, virgin blog space in the morning. Except maybe for napalm...

Lesson One

Iraq is in a Civil War. Say it again with me, kids: Iraq is in a Civil War. It's been in a Civil War for several centuries, and only the tactics of someone like Saddam can enforce a ceasefire. America isn't good at these kinds of tactics, and we don't want to be.

The unfortunate reality is that thousands more Iraqis are going to die in this war before both sides tire of it - whether there is a US presence in the country or not. Having one means only that some Americans are going to wind up as collateral damage also.

Lesson Two

Terrorism is not a "war" that the US armed forces fight, nor has it ever been. Terrorism is a criminal action. Nothing more. The only reason our unelected president called it an "act of war" was to benefit the insurance industry.

Because terrorism is a criminal action, counter-terrorism must be police action. As several veterans here have already said, the military sucks at police action. Therefore, we need a completely different kind of counter-terrorist force on US territory, with as well-controlled and as airtight a border as we can get.

As for the rest of the world, it's up to them to tackle the terrorism problem in whatever ways they see fit. We'll share information with them, but we can't be their policemen, too.

This is an assessment. It is not a solution.

[glockmail]

This is an assessment. It is not a solution. Why would a liberal propose a solution? Much better to point fingers at the failures of those with the courage to manage problems.

[Gunny]

Clinton got the first WTC bombers didn't he? They are sitting in jail right now aren't they?

Where's Bin Laden?

I don't think invading Iraq helped destroy Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Do you?

No. They caught some of them, and it took five years to capture Yousef. By your reasoning that Clinton captured most of the actual bombers, then Bush did better since all of the actual 9/11 bombers are dead.

Yousef was a member of al Qaeda, and to date, Clinton has not captured AQ's leader, bin Laden.

Destroying bin Laden and/or AQ was not one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Aren't you the one quick to accuse others of using strawman arguments?

[Gunny]

Why would a liberal propose a solution? Much better to point fingers at the failures of those with the courage to manage problems.

What's the title of the thread?

[Samantha]

No. They caught some of them, and it took five years to capture Yousef. By your reasoning that Clinton captured most of the actual bombers, then Bush did better since all of the actual 9/11 bombers are dead.

Yousef was a member of al Qaeda, and to date, Clinton has not captured AQ's leader, bin Laden.

Destroying bin Laden and/or AQ was not one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Aren't you the one quick to accuse others of using strawman arguments?Actually AQ was in fact one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq, until it was debunked. Don't you remember?


The Times also reports that a prewar memo from Mr. Wolfowitz to Feith requesting that an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection be identified was among the newly released documents.


"We don't seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official.

Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: "We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."


The New York Times reports that presentation slides used during a Pentagon briefing at the White House were also released Thursday. The slides showed how Feith criticised US intelligence agencies that had found little or no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.


The slide used by the Pentagon analysts to brief the White House officials states the intelligence agencies assumed "that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate, even when they have common interests," and there was "consistent underestimation of importance that would be attached by Iraq and Al Qaeda to hiding a relationship."

The Pentagon, in written comments included in the report, strongly disputed that the White House briefing and the slide citing "Fundamental Problems" undercut the intelligence community.

"The intelligence community was fully aware of the work under review and commented on it several times," the Pentagon said, adding that [former CIA Diector George] Tenet, at the suggestion of the defense secretary then, Donald H. Rumsfeld, "was personally briefed."


Despite the release of Gimble's report, the Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.


"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=295396169

Cheney still insists there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Check out the video. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Cheney_continues_claims_of_SaddamQaeda_0406. html

[typomaniac]

This is an assessment. It is not a solution.Allow me to clarify. There is no solution to the problems in Iraq that can come directly from the United States. Any solution must absolutely come from the Iraqis themselves.

That said, there's no reason the US can't facilitate diplomacy or other deals among the various interest groups in Iraq in hopes of stabilizing the area. The actual solution, however, is still up to them.

[Gunny]

Allow me to clarify. There is no solution to the problems in Iraq that can come directly from the United States. Any solution must absolutely come from the Iraqis themselves.

That said, there's no reason the US can't facilitate diplomacy or other deals among the various interest groups in Iraq in hopes of stabilizing the area. The actual solution, however, is still up to them.

This STILL is not a solution. It is more situation assessment.

THIS is a solution:

Strip every militay base we have of all nonessential personnel and put rifles in their hands. All Marines and Army soldiers are taught basic infantry FIRST, their occupational specialty second.

Seal Iraq's borders with a combination manpower and airpower. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. Anything that tries without approval gets arrested or shot.

Deploy the remainder of the troops in all urban areas. Cordon them off. Sweep every city door to door, from one of the other, forcing the militants to flee or fight. Arrest or kill those that don't, and run those that flee into the waiting arms of the cordon.

Strict dusk to dawn curfew. Anyone caught violating it is arrested or shot if they resist.

Once the cities are secure, whoever has managed to escape to the countryside is out in the open. Run them down and arrest or kill them.

If this, as some of you libs like to say, creates more terrorists, kill them too.

Build up a military force of Iraqis of sufficient size to step into the shoes of US troops as they're withdrawn. Once they are in place, tell the government of Iraq it's their baby, mount up and redeploy all assets to Afghanistan to clean that shithole out in the same manner.

[typomaniac]

This STILL is not a solution. It is more situation assessment.

THIS is a solution:

Strip every militay base we have of all nonessential personnel and put rifles in their hands...

Seal Iraq's borders with a combination manpower and airpower. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. Anything that tries without approval gets arrested or shot.

...Are you telling me that the US has enough manpower to do this WITHOUT reinstating the draft? That's really difficult for me to believe.

[Gunny]

Are you telling me that the US has enough manpower to do this WITHOUT reinstating the draft? That's really difficult for me to believe.

Between electronic monitoring, monitoring from the air, and ground troops? Easily.

btw... there are a couple hundred thousand troops still manning obsolete Cold War bases and supporting the local economies in countries that are nothing but critical of us now. Pull that plug.

[typomaniac]

Between electronic monitoring, monitoring from the air, and ground troops? Easily.

btw... there are a couple hundred thousand troops still manning obsolete Cold War bases and supporting the local economies in countries that are nothing but critical of us now. Pull that plug.I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that Iraq has a substantial number of miles to its borders. So show me a number: how many personnel would an effective border closing take?

[Gunny]

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that Iraq has a substantial number of miles to its borders. So show me a number: how many personnel would an effective border closing take?

Since I am not in a situational readiness room at the SOUTHCOM level and don't have access to the resources I would need to plan such a deployment, I have no numbers and am not likely to get any.

I would suggest however you are attempting to nitpick a generalized plan. Point being that it IS a plan to secure the area and leave of our own volition, not the symptoms to what ails Iraq.

There are all kinds of actual variables that would necessitate modification in real-world planning.

[glockmail]

Actually AQ was in fact one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq, until it was debunked. Don't you remember?





http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=295396169

Cheney still insists there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Check out the video. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Cheney_continues_claims_of_SaddamQaeda_0406. html I don't see any evidence of "debunked", only the opinions of Clinton- era intelligent sources.

[Samantha]

I don't see any evidence of "debunked", only the opinions of Clinton- era intelligent sources.How would Clinton era intel sources know if Al Qaeda was connected to something that hadn't happened yet?

[typomaniac]

Since I am not in a situational readiness room at the SOUTHCOM level and don't have access to the resources I would need to plan such a deployment, I have no numbers and am not likely to get any.I'm not asking for perfect accuracy, here. Surely you can give me some sort of educated estimate, can't you?
I would suggest however you are attempting to nitpick a generalized plan.Nitpicking? Whether or not your propsed solution requires a draft is a pretty crucial variable, wouldn't you agree?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that Iraq has a substantial number of miles to its borders. So show me a number: how many personnel would an effective border closing take?

As I have sat back and observed, TYPO has had nothing to offer, other than assessments of the situation, and tried to pull apart anyone offering a SOLUTION. This is truly the show I wanted to see, a Monday morning quarterback with opinions that are worthless and no substance to offer.

Thanks for playing, TYPO, and should you ever want to join the game, the focus of this thread is clear. Offer a solution, and the ramifications of that plan, if you choose.

[typomaniac]

As I have sat back and observed, TYPO has had nothing to offer, other than assessments of the situation, and tried to pull apart anyone offering a SOLUTION. This is truly the show I wanted to see, a Monday morning quarterback with opinions that are worthless and no substance to offer.

Thanks for playing, TYPO, and should you ever want to join the game, the focus of this thread is clear. Offer a solution, and the ramifications of that plan, if you choose.Okay, second time now: I've already told you that there is no solution that the US can be directly involved in.

Want to prove me wrong? Please do.

[Gunny]

I'm not asking for perfect accuracy, here. Surely you can give me some sort of educated estimate, can't you?Nitpicking? Whether or not your propsed solution requires a draft is a pretty crucial variable, wouldn't you agree?

Nope. Pulling things out of my ass isn't my style. If you want to look it up, feel free. It was merely part of making a point, not the point itself to me.

If my plan included a draft, I would have said so.

Let's make this easy so you can get beyond this hurdle you seem to be stuck on. Manpower shortfalls for border security will be filled Iraqi military units.

[Gunny]

Okay, second time now: I've already told you that there is no solution that the US can be directly involved in.

Want to prove me wrong? Please do.

"There is no solution" is not a solution. It is a defeatist attitude for those not willing to try hard enough to achieve success.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Okay, second time now: I've already told you that there is no solution that the US can be directly involved in.

Want to prove me wrong? Please do.

What is the solution to the problems that are happening in Iraq (if your opinion is that the US can do nothing, then what is the solution to the problems they are having without our involvement, if that is a part of your solution. What are the ramifications of no more US involvement, and how will the Iraqis themselves deal with the vacuum left behind once the US is to leave (if that is a part of your solution to the problems in Iraq, as you see them.

I am not here to prove anything to you, right or wrong, just trying to understand what you see as the solution to the problems that are occurring there.

[typomaniac]

Nope. Pulling things out of my ass isn't my style. If you want to look it up, feel free. It was merely part of making a point, not the point itself to me.:lol: In other words, you don't know the answer to my question, mister "military expert." If you had, you "would have said so."

So now the truth is out. Either

a) You've never seen a day of combat in your life, or
b) The shock waves from nearby artillery fire shook your brain around to the point of turning you into a complete imbecile.


Whichever the case may be, I'm not going to keep beating my point into you, because I don't want to be accused of child abuse. Now let's make this easy: admit your loss and move on. To do anything else would be to sink your credibility a lot lower than it already is.

Y'all can stick a fork in Gunny now, 'cuz he is DONE!!

[Gunny]

:lol: In other words, you don't know the answer to my question, mister "military expert." If you had, you "would have said so."

So now the truth is out. Either

a) You've never seen a day of combat in your life, or
b) The shock waves from nearby artillery fire shook your brain around to the point of turning you into a complete imbecile.


Whichever the case may be, I'm not going to keep beating my point into you, because I don't want to be accused of child abuse. Now let's make this easy: admit your loss and move on. To do anything else would be to sink your credibility a lot lower than it already is.

Y'all can stick a fork in Gunny now, 'cuz he is DONE!!

You're a dumbass, and making yourself look like a complete and utter fool. Just thought I'd point that out.

One, I never claimed to be a military "expert." Two, I have not been in the military since the US invaded Iraq; therefore, I have never had a need to know how many miles of border Iraq has.

Three, since I am a retired Gunnery Sergeant, it was never my business to formulate plans of occupation of foreign nations at the Lieutenant General level.

Four, if you take your Einstein ass back up and look, I DID say I didn't know how many miles of border Iraq had nor how many people it would take to man it.

So just what loss am I supposed to admit to? YOU are the one who couldn't even ante up to the question you were asked. Instead, you chose to deflect off on some bullshit little tangent that is irrelevant to the overall discussion.

I hardly have to worry about anything you could do to my credibility, nimrod. Your whole post is just talking out your ass without a clue.

[typomaniac]

What is the solution to the problems that are happening in Iraq (if your opinion is that the US can do nothing, then what is the solution to the problems they are having without our involvement, if that is a part of your solution.Excellent question, which I'm happy to answer. Here is what I see as the set of options to ending the civil war in Iraq.

First, of course, is the path of least resistance, as I implied in the OP: let the Shiites and Sunnis shoot the crap out of each other until both sides get tired of doing so and call a truce. Not a great choice, obviously, because it means that you're writing off at least a few tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents.

IMO, the only other options for a solution are based on getting the top leaders of the Shiites and Sunnis to start talking to each other. With any luck, those talks by themselves will get their more "enthusiastic" followers to agree to a ceasefire of some kind.

Assuming this can occur, I see two major options for success: (1) the two sides can tweak the existing Iraqi government structure such that they're both comfortable with the power sharing and power separation that they agree to; or (2) they partition the country.
What are the ramifications of no more US involvement, and how will the Iraqis themselves deal with the vacuum left behind once the US is to leave (if that is a part of your solution to the problems in Iraq, as you see them.I folded my answer to this question into the one above; figured you wouldn't mind. :)
I am not here to prove anything to you, right or wrong, just trying to understand what you see as the solution to the problems that are occurring there.That's pretty much it, in a nutshell: diplomacy among the Iraqis. The US can facilitate the talks if either side wants it to, but nothing good can come of trying to do much more.

[Dilloduck]

Excellent question, which I'm happy to answer. Here is what I see as the set of options to ending the civil war in Iraq.

First, of course, is the path of least resistance, as I implied in the OP: let the Shiites and Sunnis shoot the crap out of each other until both sides get tired of doing so and call a truce. Not a great choice, obviously, because it means that you're writing off at least a few tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents.

IMO, the only other options for a solution are based on getting the top leaders of the Shiites and Sunnis to start talking to each other. With any luck, those talks by themselves will get their more "enthusiastic" followers to agree to a ceasefire of some kind.

Assuming this can occur, I see two major options for success: (1) the two sides can tweak the existing Iraqi government structure such that they're both comfortable with the power sharing and power separation that they agree to; or (2) they partition the country.I folded my answer to this question into the one above; figured you wouldn't mind. :)That's pretty much it, in a nutshell: diplomacy among the Iraqis. The US can facilitate the talks if either side wants it to, but nothing good can come of trying to do much more.

I
MO, the only other options for a solution are based on getting the top leaders of the Shiites and Sunnis to start talking to each other.

Any ideas on who exactly can "get" the two sects to compromise. Seems it's already been tried and it didn't go over really well.

[Gunny]

I

Any ideas on who exactly can "get" the two sects to compromise. Seems it's already been tried and it didn't go over really well.

No one can. Sunni's, especially wahabbism was basically created to combat the spread of Shi'ism from the East. They hate the shia and vice-versa almost as much as both hate us.

Then you have the kurds, who tolerate neither sect, and neither sect tolerates them.

A purely diplomatic "solution" would never work.

[glockmail]

....

A purely diplomatic "solution" would never work. Sure it would. As I said at the beginning of this war, break it up into kurdastan, shiastan, and sunnistan with a loose fedeal goverment to distribute the oil money as a pecent of their population before Saddam murdered them and force them into their respective corners, separated by two strands of razor wire 400 yards apart and a free fire zone between.

[Gunny]

Sure it would. As I said at the beginning of this war, break it up into kurdastan, shiastan, and sunnistan with a loose fedeal goverment to distribute the oil money as a pecent of their population before Saddam murdered them and force them into their respective corners, separated by two strands of razor wire 400 yards apart and a free fire zone between.

While the idea of separating them into 3 countries has its merits, it's got a lot of weaknesses as well. For one, it require more manpower to man those borders than it would to man just the current Iraq border.

[glockmail]

While the idea of separating them into 3 countries has its merits, it's got a lot of weaknesses as well. For one, it require more manpower to man those borders than it would to man just the current Iraq border. Land mines, flyovers, and nice, safe plinking would do the trick.

[typomaniac]

Any ideas on who exactly can "get" the two sects to compromise. Seems it's already been tried and it didn't go over really well.The fact that it's been tried once and failed is hardly an indicator that it can never succeed. The sectarian leaders are still human beings, and therefore fickle.

Besides, I'm sure they realize that they'll have no power left if all their followers blow themselves away.

[avatar4321]

The fact that it's been tried once and failed is hardly an indicator that it can never succeed. The sectarian leaders are still human beings, and therefore fickle.

Besides, I'm sure they realize that they'll have no power left if all their followers blow themselves away.

I dont think they intend to blow themselves away, just the enemies. But then people never seem to realize they are going to destroy each other till they do.

[Gunny]

The fact that it's been tried once and failed is hardly an indicator that it can never succeed. The sectarian leaders are still human beings, and therefore fickle.

Besides, I'm sure they realize that they'll have no power left if all their followers blow themselves away.

You are thinking they are "human beings" in the Judeo-Christian, Western-society sense of the word. In that regard, they are not, and not understanding that has been one of if not THE biggest obstacle to the West's dealings with them.

The Islamic extremists in particular are uncompromising, even to their own detriment. If they wanted to REALLY make it tough on us, imagine if the various sects put aside their differences to concentrate force against us. Each sect's idea of compromise is everybody do everything their way, and they are willing to fight to the death, to include killing themselves to murder others.

When diplomacy fails, and/or has no chance, and Man acts in a primitive, genocidal manner, it all boils down to who is willing to use the most force. The more civilized society (that would be us) that is unwilling to compromise its principle taking some arbitrary "high road" will always fall to the force that is willing to wage total war at its most savage level.

Until we, as a people, come to grips with that ... and sadly there are too many who are too caught up in their own self-righteousness to ever even entertain the notion ... they extremists will run amock and our efforts will be mediocre at best.

[Gunny]

I dont think they intend to blow themselves away, just the enemies. But then people never seem to realize they are going to destroy each other till they do.

Islamic extremists have absolutely no problem with sacrificing themselves to take everyone else with them. We see it on the smaller scale (homicide bombers) every day.

That is reason enough to take whatever steps necessary to ensure Islamofascist regimes like Iran never get their hands on nuclear weapons. If and when they do, it won't be 15 Brits being held hostage. It'll be the region and/or the world.

[Nukeman]

It amazes me how little people know about the "fastest growing religion", yet they continue to spout off like they know everything.


Typo is a typical lib who thinks they (islamist) think like you and I and to some degree even themselves.

[Gunny]

It amazes me how little people know about the "fastest growing religion", yet they continue to spout off like they know everything.


Typo is a typical lib who thinks they (islamist) think like you and I and to some degree even themselves.

True enough, but hardly something to pinpoint on typeo. Our societal arrogance that no one could possibly think other than we, no want anything other than what we have, and that we're the best teaches us that from the cradle.

The fact is, IMO, we invaded Iraq under that mistaken mindset, thinking a bunch of 11th century minds were going to run out and embrace our idea of freedom and democracy and set up a government based on Jeffersonian democracy.

Freedom to them was freedom to resume their centuries old killing of one another over waterholes and insults we couldn't fathom, and for religious extremsits to resume converting or killing everyone in sight. And here we are telling them they shouldn't want to do what's been ingrained in them for generations for centuries.

[typomaniac]

Assuming this kind of racist bullshit were true, the only logical thing to do would be to get the hell out of the way and let the various factions exterminate one another.

[Gunny]

Assuming this kind of racist bullshit were true, the only logical thing to do would be to get the hell out of the way and let the various factions exterminate one another.

Nothing racist about it, and your answer is indicative of one who lives in a politically correct coccoon and can fathom no other concepts beyond your own.

Cutural/ideological ignorance is almost always at the root of every war, and in almost every instance, it is either out of fear of difference, and/or having no concept of the other side's culture.

You talk about diplomacy, but you would fail completely and miserably because you refuse to open your eyes and see that in order to come even close, you have to understand what your adversary wants, or what it will take to appease him.

The ignorance you are displaying now is the VERY SAME ignorance that has US troops standing on the ground in Iraq.

[typomaniac]

Islamic extremists have absolutely no problem with sacrificing themselves to take everyone else with them. We see it on the smaller scale (homicide bombers) every day.That's why the extremists don't hold the real power, Einstein. They don't live long enough.

[Gunny]

That's why the extremists don't hold the real power, Einstein. They don't live long enough.

Really? They'll hold it until some non-extremists find their balls and take it to them.

They control the government of Iran. They're trying to take over Iraq. Ask your buddy loosecannon who supports the wahabbi madrassas in Saudi Arabia.

The control the power because they're willing to fight and die to take it. We aren't willing to fight and die to defend it anymore.

[typomaniac]

It amazes me how little people know about the "fastest growing religion", yet they continue to spout off like they know everything.


Typo is a typical lib who thinks they (islamist) think like you and I and to some degree even themselves.Just curious: how many muslims do you know personally? How many times have you been to a mosque?

[Gunny]

Just curious: how many muslims do you know personally? How many times have you been to a mosque?

How many times have YOU been to the Middle East?

[typomaniac]

How many times have YOU been to the Middle East?I'm waiting for the political situation there to calm down before I do the tourist thing. :)

By the way, what was that you were saying about "deflection" in another thread?

[glockmail]

Just curious: how many muslims do you know personally? How many times have you been to a mosque? I've known quite a few, and have never met an arab or pali muslim that was worth the O2 that they take up. The African ones have all been average joes.

[Gunny]

I'm waiting for the political situation there to calm down before I do the tourist thing. :)

By the way, what was that you were saying about "deflection" in another thread?

I thought I would ask a question that was about as relevant as yours to nukeman.;)

Going to a mosque here in the states, or having American Muslim friends has no bearing on the issue as it pertains to the Middle East.

Militant Muslim fundamentalists look a WHOLE lot different in their bedsheets with an AK-47 slung over their shoulders.

I know some American Muslims. My next door neighbor is an Arab Muslim. I have met with, talked to and observed Arab muslims in their own environment.
The two are not comparable.

[Gunny]

Oh, and I would suggest Beirut as a tourist destination ... once the fighting dies down, IF it ever does. The rest of the place is only nice if you have fond memories of your childhood sandbox.

[Trigg]

Ahhhh, nothing like the smell of fresh, virgin blog space in the morning. Except maybe for napalm...

Lesson One

Iraq is in a Civil War. Say it again with me, kids: Iraq is in a Civil War. It's been in a Civil War for several centuries, and only the tactics of someone like Saddam can enforce a ceasefire. America isn't good at these kinds of tactics, and we don't want to be.

The unfortunate reality is that thousands more Iraqis are going to die in this war before both sides tire of it - whether there is a US presence in the country or not. Having one means only that some Americans are going to wind up as collateral damage also.

I actually agree with you on this one. Saddam was able to keep the peace between the Sunni and Shite because he took revenge on the families of the offenders.

Right now they're busy killing each other, they don't want peace.

[typomaniac]

I thought I would ask a question that was about as relevant as yours to nukeman.;)Lest you forget, nukeman was the one who accused me of knowing nothing about Islam - and he got pwnd for it.
Militant Muslim fundamentalists look a WHOLE lot different in their bedsheets with an AK-47 slung over their shoulders.So would I. What's your point?
Oh, and I would suggest Beirut as a tourist destination ... once the fighting dies down, IF it ever does. The rest of the place is only nice if you have fond memories of your childhood sandbox.Did the cat use to leave you chocolates in there? :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Lest you forget, nukeman was the one who accused me of knowing nothing about Islam - and he got pwnd for it.So would I. What's your point?Did the cat use to leave you chocolates in there? :laugh2:

You hardly pwned anyone by asking an irrelevant question.

My point is, as previously explained, you're trying to compare American muslims who worship a watered-down, law-abiding form of Islam with Arab, militant, Islamic fundamentalists who believe in the literal word of not changing anything from Mohammed's time and living in an 11th century world, and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way or disagrees.

There is no comparison. You may very-well know plenty of American muslims. Most are probably as harmless as the Joe Average Arab muslim.

Those muslims aren't the ones blowing any-and-everybody up, and it is they who this discussion focusses on.

Dude, I'm, a Marine. My sandbox was 29 Palms, CA. When I was a little kid I beat up all the neighborhood kids and slit their pet's throats with a K-bar in preparation for bootcamp.;)

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Dude, I'm, a Marine. My sandbox was 29 Palms, CA. When I was a little kid I beat up all the neighborhood kids and slit their pet's throats with a K-bar in preparation for bootcamp.;)

OOOH RAH! I used popcicle sticks!

[typomaniac]

I'd have given some serious thought to Annapolis if I hadn't been 4F. :(

"There but for the grace of God," I suppose.

[Gunny]

OOOH RAH! I used popcicle sticks!

Showoff.:laugh2: