What would you do now?

I agree that the situation in Iraq is a badly managed mess. Given the situation as it exists now what should we do? If the answer is to walk away, then we are saying it is OK for a people to have suicide bombers kill 300 innocent people, that is OK to practice ethnic cleansing, that is OK to treat women as property? This is the situation as it exists now.

If we stay, then how do we realistically change the minds of people who have been fighting among each other since 600 AD? If we find their practices abhorrent is it OK to use force to change it? And if so how much force are we willing to use? Do we clamp an iron fist over Iraq to stop the fighting?

What you you do now?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    pulling out en masse sends the wrong message to the extremists

    the indecision within the usa govt and lack of cohesion makes the usa look weak.

    iraq is a country in my opinion that needs to be divided into smaller parts each autonomous and sharing the wealth(a tall order for sure given mans propensity for corruption and greed)

    but trying to force people together will not work,no side wants to be dominated by the other.then of course there is irans fomenting and abetting the violence supported by russia with its own agenda and desire again to dominate the region with iran and destroy the two "satans) the usa and israel.the usa needs to be resolute and assist the iraqiis to overcome this quagmire.

    the usa cannot win but then we do not want to crawl out with our collective tail between our legs.

    people forget the good things the usa has done for iraq,the news always focuses on the bad.god forbid the usa gets a weak vacillating new president,then we will be in real trouble.

    the soldiers deserve support and respect from everyon.they do not need the nancy pelosis or kennedies,we need rudi!or mc cain maybe

    Source(s): prof abe bebottel's guide to politics 'n things
  • 1 decade ago

    I suppose it would be best to involve the neighbouring countries in the solution. Iran, can have a stabilising influence, especially on the large Shiite population in the south of Iraq. Perhaps they will be willing to take over the leadership of the foreign troops. One could also imagine that, at least temporally, they will get full government over the south of Iraq. Turkey has been in charge of the north of Iraq, ever since the first Gulf war. Their troops have being ousted by the coalition forces, and the ethnic Turks have since been deported or driven from their lands, by US and Kurdish troops. Also this problem needs addressing, as there is still a risk for the Kurds to try to establish a new Kurdistan in the region. Also Syria should be involved. As a result of the Iraqi war their influence in the region has declined. Even though they are supporting terrorists, like Hezbollah, they also had a moderating effect on them. This can be seen in them leaving Lebanon, with them out, the Hezbollah rebels felt no inhibitions in attacking Israel, with well known consequences. If Syria gets a say over what happens in middle-Iraq and Iran in the South, they will both keep taps on the rebels (that they support) in order to prevent conflict between the two nations.

    I don’t know of course if this is a realistic scenario. Much depends on the willingness of Syria and Iran to take over control of Iraq and to co-operate with its government (instead of dividing the country between them). Perhaps it is possible to appease them a bit, by lifting sanctions, or by giving them grants or lifting depths, etc. One could also think of reparations to be paid by the US to help re-building for the duration of this century.

    In any case a solution without Iran, Syria and to some extend Turkey is inconceivable.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is not our country's job to be the world police. Iraq was a sovereign nation. It was a horrible country - but it was theirs to do with as they wish.

    It was not because of "suicide bombers" or hundreds of innocents slaughtered or we thought their form of government was abhorrent...if that were the case, we would have invaded several African nations (Rwanda, Zaire, Congo and others), invaded Argentina and several other countries. Bush went into Iraq for one thing - oil..

    And, no, we will not realistically change the minds of the people. They have their own culture, beliefs, religions, jealousies, human rights - or the lack of them. They have been warring before biblical times and they always will.

    We had no business invaded their country. It is, was and always will be, simply none of our business how a country governs itself as long as they are not lobbing missiles at the shores of the United States.

  • 1 decade ago

    We are not looking to change the minds of the Iraqi people. They get to be as Iraqi as they want to be but the radical crazy people over there don't get to hold them hostage in their own country.

    The terrorist organizations are basically a government needing a country to take over so they can have a home base to build their nukes and wipe out America. They don't just dislike us, they want us to cease to exist. Get it?

    As far as how much force us needed to prevent that, I think whatever is necessary don't you? How much force should we have used to help end the Holocaust? Same deal on terms of abhorrent practices.

    As far as the iron fist, the plan is to teach the Iraqi people to do their own clamping, we're just here to help while protecting our own interests in the meantime. Just my take on it. Good luck.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    We stay and assist the democratically elected government in setting up their police and protective forces so they can protect themselves. When that has happened we pull most of our troops out and provide a close support role, say from Kuwait, in case of attack from one of the neighboring problem countries such as Iran or Syria.

  • 1 decade ago

    well it will be a gnerational thing if we do stay in there now, but if we leave its another vietnam thing. SO do we really want to go through another hardship like Vietnam? Its up to decision, but I believe if we can do it for a generational period we should. If we clarify it and make everyone know that thats how it will be it will turn out better than if we just left you know.

  • 1 decade ago

    I believe with putting up borders between Syria & Iran will help slow down the weapons comming from them two countries. My oppinion is for the UN to get involved with the surrounding countries to stop the weapons problems.

    Source(s): none
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.