Solution in IraqFollow

I know that Iraq is a source of lots of argument on both sides. And maybe you support the war or maybe you hate the war but for now I would like you to focus on just one thing:

How should we end it? REALISTICALY! For example don't say nuke them into a glass bowl unless you realy think that is what we should do.

Surprisingly enough (or maybe not), my answer is pretty similar to Smash's. This should be a UN lead operation. It would ease a hell of a lot of tensions if it was UN led.

It wouldn't guarantee a "better" result in Iraq after the fact, but it would reduce the hatred and fingerpointing towards the US.


I have been and still am of the opinion that the big "win" for us here was not necessarily in what government replaces Saddam's (although of course we have our preferences), but the message to the rest of the tinpot dicatators in the middle east that they aren't as secure in their sovreinity as they might think. While it would be really really nice to be able to replace a nasty guy like Saddam with someone everyone really likes and who'll do wonderful things for the people of Iraq, that's not necessary for the "war on terror" to work (as awful as I think that phrase is).

One of the funny things about the "good guys" vs the "bad guys" in international politics is that while the good guys may care about who leads who's nation, the bad guys tend to only care about themselves. It's not like there's a coalition of baddies and as long as one of them is in power, they're all pushing the "bad guy" agenda. Saddam doesn't benefit if some nasty piece of work replaces him. He doesn't care who takes power in Iraq. Anyone other then him is contrary to his purposes. Same goes for every other power-hungry leader. So to put the fear into them, we don't have to show that we can replace them with someone "good". We only have to show that they can be removed from power.


Which is why the pre-occpuation with having to be "in control" in post war Iraq is silly IMO. We should farm that out to the UN, and get on with other business.

Build large fence around bagdad, Falujah and Najaff. Fill all three areas with all manner of interesting small pettable animals. declare all three as U.N. protected petting zoos. Watch confusion ensue.

That's not to say it's been "bungled" either though. There's some logic to the notion that it had to go down this way.

The UN would not have taken action in Iraq. That was absolutely clear. The US felt that nations like Iraq should be susceptible to more powerful measures then the relative kid gloves that Saddam got after the first gulf war. Agree or disagree with that sentiment, it's very clear that this whole thing is a basic and fundamental difference in opinion over what the UN's role *should* be in terms of world politics.

Sometimes you have to drag a body like the UN kicking and screaming into something. This is one of those cases. If you can't get them to start out by taking action, then you take action yourself, then make it clear that you yourself can't handle the action after the fact (post war cleanup, which is what we've been pretty **** poor at), and then you dump it in the UN's lap. End result is that you get them to do what you wanted them to do 10 years ago.

But of course, this is politics and you get everyone's finger into the pie and things get messy. But I'm just talking about political agendas. Each group thinks they're getting one thing or another out of the whole deal. Sometimes what you start out trying to do ends up being something completely different by the time the political machine is done working it through.


I think it's a great oversimplification to say that the war was about profits though. We've spent vastly more then anyone has made. The profit margins for a contract like Haliburton got really aren't that great. It looks huge when you see numbers like "Oh! They got a 2 billion dollar contract!". That's for the whole project, and that's a gross sum that most mid-smallish size companies make in a year. Why on earth would a company the size of Haliburton do all these underhanded and shady deals just so they can make some profits that most companies would consider kinda "so-so" at best? That scenario really only exists in the conspiracy theorists minds. It realy makes no sense if you have even a minor bit of experience with big business and stop to think about the money expenditures involved versus the profits gained.

The US should withdraw from the UN. It won't take long for the UN to completely collapse, since it is almost exclusively funded by the US. Third world nations would bicker over how to word their indignation, just before it all falls apart. The UN building would make nice condos.

Now, for Iraq. The law needs to be laid down. I don't care whos country it is, but it's under US control for now. Crush whatever remaining resistance there is, set up a system for free elections, run the process, and set them on their way.

We're wasting too much time and money trying to make too many different groups happy. Not everyone will get a big woody and a smile out of the deal. People need to accept that and make the firm commitment to fix Iraq.

Mostly a joke, but the part about withdrawing from the UN, I really do believe in that. The UN is just a place for third world countries to bash the US, and we fricking pay to have it done.

What is one good thing the UN has ever done?

Same was said about the US federal government 50 years after it was formed. It was just a body that states paid some money into, and sent some representatives to, but really din't have any authority to do anything. It took Lincoln to put the final stamp on that issue.


Speaking of Lincoln and the Civil War. While I'm not claiming any sort of direct parallel, that does give us a good example of what I was talking about, Yanari. Everyone thought Lincoln was reckless, and bungled the political situation between North and South and caused the worst conflict in US history. Similarly, there were huge mistakes made during that war (heck. All wars), that cost even more lives. There were atrocities commited that make anything being done in Iraq look like nothing. Yet that conflict is considered one of the most pivotal events in US history, and Lincoln one of it's greatest presidents. Why? Because it was necessary for political and social change to occur.


Am I the only one who sees that at its core the Iraqi conflict is about both the need to enforce consistent rules across international boundaries and the need for an international body with the power and authority to enforce those rules? Replace UN, with US, and international with interstate, and this conflict should look really similar. Um... This is just one battle in this war btw, and not all the battles will be fought with bullets like this one. It's ultimately about forcing the UN to take a true leadership role over nations, not just in word, but in deed. Looked at that way, it's not bungled at all. It's almost exactly right. We just showed that "rogue" nations can be brought down sucessfully, and also showed that one nation cannot/shouldn't to it alone (for a number or reasons). The likely long term result of this will be that the UN will have to get more actively involved in such things, if for no other reason then to prevent us from doing it ourselves. Now that could be coincidence, but I don't think so...

Time will tell though. And I'm not taling about a year, or 5 years, or 10 years. In a hundred years though, I'll bet you anything that historians will look upon this conflict as one of the major starting points towards a true world government. Or the start of the fall of all civilization. All depends on how things work out I guess... ;)

Yes. Well, the only one who thinks so.

We showed that we'll determine for ourselves, without UN approval, who is a "rogue" nation and how to deal with them even if the UN disagrees with our assessment. And you say that now we can bully the UN into agreeing with our definition of "rogue nation" just to prevent us from fu'king it up when we inevitably do whatever we want anyway. Yay!

No one has yet mentioned one good thing the UN has ever done, on its own.

And the UN did everything it could to support Hussein. They refused to enforce the resolutions they passed. The UN philosoihy is "Stop! Or we'll ask again!" whereas the US philosophy is "Stop now or we pinch your fat head off." Which do you think goes further with 3rd world despotic leaders?

Hell, after we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, all of the sudden Old Mommar pops out and says "OH! We stop making nuclear weapons! See!" The funny thing is, we knew they actually had a nuclear weapons program? Qhadafi was quaking in boots for fear he was next and now the world is just a little bit safer.

I like that.

And what good is a body when it cannot enforce its own resolutions. Why would anyone (and no one does) give what the UN says any credence?

If I were some despotic dictator oppressing my people, and the UN said, "Hey, stop that!" I would smile and keep on oppressing them, comfortable in the knowledge that if anyone, like the US, tried to stop me, the UN would be there to defend me in media and make me out to be the victim.

Well, pre-Bush anyway. Put a good liberal in the White House, and I'd be a happy oppressive dictator.

No - I'm right there with you Bongo. Pretty much agree with everything you said. Those who believe this (insert word here) has truly been bungled are being led by the nose with blinders on courtesy of our more than biased media. Only in America can you sit back and truly believe Utopia is obtainable without the shedding of blood, sweat, and/or tears. Hug a GI for that freedom, if they'll let you. Weak kneed liberalism is not thought real highly of in the armed forces. Talk about bungling - read this :

"FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us:
Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of
112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has
attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President
Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist
attack at home.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is
taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to
take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq
for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law
Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to
call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick."

I thought this excerpt might help put things in perspective. We have the luxury of being both impatient and nonunderstanding.



Edited, Thu May 6 15:26:37 2004 by Bonasorte

Well, I dont know where Bongi, Bungo Bungi Bongo came from - but really, you should consider going back to whatever hole it was you emerged from (OT are Admins allowed SPs?)


His/her attitude is what makes the rest of the world find it very hard to cope with the US and the hey we are bigger so we must know best ideal.


deleted the rest it got tooo long - Fighting that inate prejudice and brainwashing, is just toooooooo much.

Just one question Bongo - do you have a passport ?

2 words for you Smasharoo - Jimmy Carter. Highest rate of inflation ever.