PDA

View Full Version : How to stabilize the region...



rice_eater
05-01-2004, 06:35 PM
We've beaten the war in iraq to death. But let's focus on something different for a change. Now that what's done is done, how do we make peace in the region again? Lets step away from the US bashing, and weather or not it was a just war. We talked about that so dont bring it up.

How do we stabilize the region?

IMO, this can only be achieved by improving the standard of living of the people in the region. Once a majority of people is reasonably well off, extremist groups will no longer apeal to people. The only thing left to fight for will be personal greed. I believe that once people start to live better, they will outright be against sensless killings and fightings, and focus on maintaining and improving their lives, much how we and most of the people in the world are. What do you think?

hjr
05-01-2004, 11:23 PM
perhaps if they step out for a set period of time, say 6 months, and allow the local iraqi's to bring about their own goverment like some seem so desperate to do (even as far as suicide bombings). If it doesnt happen or there is no significant progress, they go back in and say fuck it, you doing it our way, no ifs ands of buts. American democracy may not be perfect, but ill let winnie say it:

Winston Churchill - "Democracy is the worst form
of government - except all the others that have been tried"

there is no better option available at this time.

el_fefes
05-01-2004, 11:34 PM
To stabilize Iraq, and the region the US has to step out of there. Think about it, what those people don't like is that they're being governed by an invader and even worst a non-arab one at that. I say they should let the iraqi's build their own government. But it can't be someone appointed by the US it has to be an election. The problem is that that cleric guy, the extremist might win and that's just like ending with another Saddam. They should call an election and just stay there in case things need to be stabilized.

rice_eater
05-01-2004, 11:44 PM
the US leaving will just create a power vacuum. One thing Sadam was able to do is too keep the country united. Now every faction will fight for power. IMO the attacks are lead by the people that want the US out of there so then they can take over the power. I think the US pulling out completely all of a sudden will create more problems than it'll solve. At least wait till the elections hold place.

el_fefes
05-01-2004, 11:49 PM
Yes. As I said at the end, it's better to call an election and stay if things get out of hand. If they do that they should be able to withdraw some troops. Also the UN should get involved. It's all about the benefits of cooperation.

A_3
05-01-2004, 11:57 PM
^:werd: , war lords and extremist groups will take over if the US steps out now... and the country will go more to shit then ever before. The UN is in charge of the rebuilding now... i have no idea how they're are going to fix it because they cannot just appoint a government the people of iraq will never accept it. The only way i can possibly think to rebuild Iraq is the same way Germany was rebuilt after ww2. Like rice_eater said, if the UN supplies the people with a greater standard of living then any war lord or extremist group can provide the people will lose interest in any such causes. First thing that has to be obtained though is stability in the region, rich now it is pure anarchy, you got every group from the Taliban to the Kurds trying to get there hands on power. I hope the UN can solve it soon before it does the opposite of what Bush wanted and destabalized the region... but hey maybe next time he should go after the real problem ahem* Suadi Arabia ahem* (sorry just now a bush fan)

GingeRRRBeef
05-02-2004, 01:29 AM
Call it conspiracy theory or whatever but I believe that the only reason the US went to Iraq is to get a dominating presense in the middle east.

It's a known fact that war can sustain or even revive an ailing economy. Just before 911, the US economy was falling and after taking over Afghanistan, they need war to keep the economy from crashing. They say that they use the oil from Iraq to pay for it's rebuild. But guess who will get the contracts to rebuild Iraq? American companies. It creates jobs and opportunities. Bush needs reasons to keep his presidency. He needs at least a normal economy and excuses that he, himself, is fighting for the US people.

I clearly remember saying when Bush was elected that he was gonna go after Saddam Hussein. I said that he was gonna go finish what his pops couldn't do and I was right. Going after Iraq might only be a Bush administration policy and if Bush gets re-elected for another term, don't be surprised to see America getting a new "enemy". However, if John Kerry gets elected and the US still goes after a new middle east country, then I think there's definitely something fishy going on.

Chris Rock puts it in the simplest terms
"We gotta go to Iraq cause they the most dangerous country on earth ... if they so dangerous, how come it only took two weeks to take over the whole fucking country? ... You couldn't take over Baltimore in two weeks."

GingeRRRBeef
05-02-2004, 01:34 AM
I think another "evidence" that shows Bush needs to aid the economy is his BIG tax break. Those billions of dollars of tax breaks didn't go to the average americans who actually NEED it. They went to the richest americans. The ones who own companies and factories. With a big tax break, the government hopes that these big companies will use the extra money to invest and pump the money back into the economy to get it to rise again.

A_3
05-02-2004, 09:07 AM
^ Yes George did a very big no no with those upper class rax cuts. History has proven that upper class tax cuts are bad news, look at the French revolution. Iraq benefits the US in many ways but the clearest being the revenues from large contracts awarded to American construction companies for the rebuilding of Iraq and the future oil revenues. Weapons of mass destruction... go to North Korea... liberating the iraqi citizens... Saddam is small potato's compared to many other regimes in the world... try Saudi Arabi... but oh right they have their hands in 1/3 of the American economy and George couldn't attack his daddies friend... right?

rice_eater
05-02-2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Silver_SpecV
Call it conspiracy theory or whatever but I believe that the only reason the US went to Iraq is to get a dominating presense in the middle east.

It's a known fact that war can sustain or even revive an ailing economy. Just before 911, the US economy was falling and after taking over Afghanistan, they need war to keep the economy from crashing. They say that they use the oil from Iraq to pay for it's rebuild. But guess who will get the contracts to rebuild Iraq? American companies. It creates jobs and opportunities. Bush needs reasons to keep his presidency. He needs at least a normal economy and excuses that he, himself, is fighting for the US people.

I clearly remember saying when Bush was elected that he was gonna go after Saddam Hussein. I said that he was gonna go finish what his pops couldn't do and I was right. Going after Iraq might only be a Bush administration policy and if Bush gets re-elected for another term, don't be surprised to see America getting a new "enemy". However, if John Kerry gets elected and the US still goes after a new middle east country, then I think there's definitely something fishy going on.

Chris Rock puts it in the simplest terms
"We gotta go to Iraq cause they the most dangerous country on earth ... if they so dangerous, how come it only took two weeks to take over the whole fucking country? ... You couldn't take over Baltimore in two weeks."
we beat that to DEATH already...let's stay on topic please and focus on what we do now, not on whta we think about the war :)

Weapon_R
05-02-2004, 02:33 PM
This came as a discussion recently in class, and not a single person could figure out what exactly it was that would work in the nation.

Ultimately, there are two differing solutions in the region, come June 30th.

If the United States stays in Iraq, it will continue to face daily attacks by the Iraqis. The United States cannot afford to occupy a nation the size or Iraq for too long. They have already started to suffer from Imperial Overstretch in my opinion, and are no longer able to maintain large forces in the region unless they neglect another. The United States is going to try and weasel its way out of there as soon as possible, after it establishes another friendly government and business ventures.

If the United States pulls out, there is going to be big conflict. If they decide to have free and fair elections (which I do support, just not now), the Shi'ites will elect Shi'ites, and form the majority government. This may not seem too bad, since they Shi'ites are the majority in the country, but let's not forget that the Sunni's have wielded the power in the nation for over 40 years straight now. Under Saddam's regime, it was difficult to get a prominent government position or military promotion unless you were Sunni. This means that all of the military knowledge, and perhaps weaponry, is still with the Sunnis. Fallujah is a sunni region, not a shi'ite one.

My solution?

A government established to represent both large groups. The constitution must dictate that the president must be a Shi'ite Muslim, and that the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim. The constitution must create clear mandates for both top-level positions, must be equally powerful, and tasks cannot overlap. I think that both positions must have the support of parliament to institute policy. Parliament must be made up of a fair balance between Sunnis and shi'ites, something like 60% to 40% or so. This would ensure that both have strong represntation in parliament. Weapons in the region must be controlled, but only by Iraqis, not Americans. Finally, sanctions must be lifted to help Iraq develope its infrastructure destroyed by the occupiers.

Only then, after 5-10 years of stability, will free and fair elections be a viable solution to the problem that exists today. My 0.02.

RiCE-DaDDy
05-02-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Silver_SpecV
I think another "evidence" that shows Bush needs to aid the economy is his BIG tax break. Those billions of dollars of tax breaks didn't go to the average americans who actually NEED it. They went to the richest americans. The ones who own companies and factories. With a big tax break, the government hopes that these big companies will use the extra money to invest and pump the money back into the economy to get it to rise again.

He's funding a war and giving tax breaks at the same time :rolleyes:

Also, don't the US have to pull out in like 3 months?

rice_eater
05-02-2004, 04:59 PM
i agree with you weaponR except on one thing which i'm sure you agree with too, but just left it vague...i dont think that it's your everyday iraqi who is attacking the US soldiers, it's the extremists that want to drive the americans out asap so they can try to take over. I'm sure that if we can come up with these ideas, all the high level diplomats do too, and if the UN has any backbone they will move some troops in there to go along with the US. When the region explodes it'll be way too late. Who gives a shit that the states went in alone. That is past us and now we have to deal with it together. Pointing fingers while people get killed is not the way to go about it.
To go along with your point on who is holding the weapons you are completely right. Honestly, i dont understand why the US is putting Sadam's old generals in charge of the army. They might be the most qualified, but wouldn't they still hold aliegeance (sp) to the old rulling powers? I mean when you have a dictator with an iron fist, you know he's gonna put his closest most loyal people in charge of something so important as the army. Just a though. Lets hear some more opinions on this :)

el_fefes
05-02-2004, 08:07 PM
I agree with Weapon_R. His solution to the problem is the one that will likely cause less trouble. The problem is how that gov't will be established. Elections? Appointed by the US? Even perhaps by the UN? Elections will probably result in a Shi'ite majority. People appointed by the US would not work because the Iraqi's will not accept that. Then the only option left is for someone to be appointed by the UN the impartial body.

Weapon_R
05-02-2004, 08:28 PM
I disagree about the insurgents. I think that all Iraqi people can be classified as insurgents. The problem with us North Americans is that we don't understand quite how the Iraqi people feel.

These people no longer have the luxury that they did earlier. Believe me when I say that things under Saddam were better than they are now. He was the only leader to maintain safety, a prosperous economy, and employment. I know there will be at least one moron who will pipe up and say "yeah, but he was a bad man!". I KNOW he was. And so was Hitler and Stalin, but it doesn't take away from the fact that both leaders reformed the internal domestic problems of their respective nations into strong and vibrant countries.

Today, there is no work, there is little food, and the economy has been shattered. The Iraqis are determined to ensure that Iraq does not become another Palestine, where its largely believed that the West stole their land and pulled the wool over the Arabs eyes. Former military soldiers, who were guaranteed food and income under Saddam's regime, have largely been fired by the American forces. This has left millions of people without a source of primary income. The blame is always directed towards the Americans, and a strong sense of animosity will always exist towards Americans. They destroyed their country in 1991, and they did it again in 2003. Remember, Saddam had one million troops in 1991. Chances are, a close relative of each Iraqi citizen has been injured or killed in Iraq.

My only hope is to see the United Nations take over the security of the region. This is essential. America is not liked over there. Hell, it's not liked anywhere, and in time, the war criminals will have to answer to the rest of the world. Although a deep sense of mistrust exists over the UN, I believe that their purpose is generally legitimately good. Kofi Annan is a peaceful person, and his ideas and plans for the future are really optimistic. More attention needs to be focused on establishing a stable government, appointed by the UN following consideration by a prominent and respected plethora of Iraqi citizens, including both politicians and religious leaders. Leaders like Muqtada Al-Sadr, who control thousands of fighters, must be consulted. These people possess the ability to quelll fighting, but they cannot be forced to accept the presence of outside forces, especially in religious areas like Najaf and Fallujah. If these leaders agree, fighting will cease - but they haven't even been consulted yet. A collective balance must be found, that is accepted by the Iraqis. Once the status quo has been maintained for a few years, and without American presence in the region determining the footsteps of a new government, I can see the the establishment of free and fair elections in 10 years, as the animosity between Shi'ites and Sunnis, that has been exemplified by Americans and Saddams rule, slowly disappears.