TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What should the US have done instead of invade Iraq?

What should the US have done instead of invade Iraq?

Plenty of you are opposed to invasion of Iraq so this question is mostly for you.

What should the US have done instead of invade Iraq if the invasion of Iraq was not the right course? Possibly, could the US have done much better in the execution of the occupation or in just not invading Iraq at all? Now if your answer is to not have invaded Iraq at all, what alternative course should have been taken?

open low-level formal relationships and institute expansive free trade.

Sell them McDonalds, KFC & Coke, watch them die off from heart disease.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Sell them McDonalds, KFC & Coke, watch them die off from heart disease.

Aren't those icons of the great Satan?

Finish the job in Afghanistan and then maybe look at Saddam antics

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange open low-level formal relationships and institute expansive free trade.

wasn't that the Oil for Food Program?

that can be taken literally or as a joke BTW. i prefer the joke.

Re: What should the US have done instead of invade Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton what alternative course should have been taken?

Against...? There was no reason to go there in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Aren't those icons of the great Satan?

There's icons of the 'not so great satan' and 'middle-management satan' as well?

But back to "What should the US have done instead of invade Iraq?"
I think essentially when most of the world says "Its a really, really dumb idea" the US could actually listen for a change instead of mocking them. But hey, if they get a bloody nose out of it, bleed out enough cash and look like complete fools it might make them a little less keen next time.
Humility sometimes comes in doses which cost a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wasn't that the Oil for Food Program?

hmmm, no. i suggested that the US should have done to Iraq what the Chinese have done to the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange hmmm, no. i suggested that the US should have done to Iraq what the Chinese have done to the US.

i hear what your saying but our form of government/free market ideals would make that impossible.

Gone to the moon and/or mars

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i hear what your saying but our form of government/free market ideals would make that impossible.

ok that was an extreme example, but the us should have pursued a policy of exchange not embargo. the embargo had the positive effect of not allowing saddam from obtaining wmds, but it also created a dire situation (poverty/starvation) and hatred toward the us. the effects of which probably have impacted the resistance toward the occupation.

think of the goodwill that could have been created and what could have been avoided. the us policy of engagement similar to that employed elsewhere should have been employed here too. personally, i think the president was not sufficiently impartial to make any decisions regarding iraq.

in sum, i think firm and goal-oriented engagement would have been a preferable alternative to the actual policy which in my view was more disengagement and with a humanitarian trade bandage, as an afterthought. for this clinton bears a lot of reponsibility too, not just bush.

Why did we have to do anything again?

They should have just written me a check for what the war was going to cost. Same cost in cash, less cost in life. Same benefit to the country (none). That's "better" for the country. Especially me.

They should have legalized charas.

Good thread and good question! (Well, only cos I have loads of opinions on this!)

First of all I'll talk about Iraq and then the wider Middle East policy later.

On Iraq: Saddam needed to go, no question. The sanctions were working fine, stopping him from developing WMDs, but the people were suffering enormously. So leaving aside the bullshit about the "war on terror", there were three logical courses of action (the position taken by the British government who never equated Iraq with the "war on terror"). 1) Keep the status quo - Saddam gets no WMDs but the people keep dying. 2) Remove the sanctions - the people get 'better' but Saddam most certainly restarts his WMD program and his plans to conquer the Middle East and it's oil. 3) Remove Saddam by force - perfect! Get rid of Saddam and his nasty plans and save the people who will want a democracy, or so we thought...

A severe intelligence fuck up or lazy lazy analysis of Iraq and it's society meant that we have the mess we have today. IMO, the Iraq war should never have been equated to the "war on terror" as that is one of the reasons the insurgency has been so bad. What we should have done is sponsor Sadr's group to remove Saddam and install a government (obviously following a deal done over the inclusion of Sunnis and Kurds in the government).

On the wider Middle East: The timing of Iraq was all wrong. Whether America said it was part of the "war or terror" or not is irrelevant due to the timing cos the al-Qaida types would claim it was and act accordingly. IMO "we" should have done three things before we turned our attention to Iraq:

1) Finish what we started in Afghanistan. The world was united behind us due to the events on 9/11 (including the Arab states and probably the Arab street as well for a good part). We really could have routed al-Qaida and the Taliban for good. Instead troops were pulled out and sent to Iraq hampering our efforts there and the result is that al-Qaida/Taliban have been allowed to regroup and build their strength up.

2) Lebanon: Aid should be poured into Lebanon to make it as successful as it was in the early 70s. The neocons wanted a model democracy in the Middle East so it would be attractive to the rest of the Middle East population and they would demand similar (so the theory goes). Hariri's assassination led to the withdrawal of Syria which gave Lebanon a great chance to consolidate democarcy. It is vital Hizballah are included in this but America has a bee in it's bonnet since they killed all those Marines that led to America's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 80s.

3) Palestine: America has the power to enforce a settlement on Israel and Palestine, but domestic pressure states that they have to be anti-Palestine and rabidly pro-Israel. America (and EU) needs to use it's influence over Israel to come to some solution as this will go a long way to solving the rest of the Middle East's problems.

And then they could sort Iraq out!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter They should have just written me a check for what the war was going to cost. Same cost in cash, less cost in life. Same benefit to the country (none). That's "better" for the country. Especially me.

Haha, nice. I love the part in bold .

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter They should have just written me a check for what the war was going to cost. Same cost in cash, less cost in life. Same benefit to the country (none). That's "better" for the country. Especially me.

Actually, you would have put a portion of that cash back into the economy, helping the country indirectly.

They should have invaded Iran instead... And Saddam would have helped too. Saddam would keep crazies in his neck of the woods under control, while US cleaned house in Iran. Iraq was a lesser of two evils, IMHO.

The rest countries

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 They should have invaded Iran instead... And Saddam would have helped too. Saddam would keep crazies in his neck of the woods under control, while US cleaned house in Iran. Iraq was a lesser of two evils, IMHO.

But what has Iran done that makes it worse than what Saddam had done?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But what has Iran done that makes it worse than what Saddam had done?

Not much at all, actually nothing even close to what Saddam had done.

It's all about controlling the oil and occupying the land with secret military bases (all 13 of them) which is also why the US will never leave completely.

All steps where precisely calculated because China is on the horizon.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Actually, you would have put a portion of that cash back into the economy, helping the country indirectly.

True. Good call.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.