Printable View
In an earlier poll the opposition mind was asked to rank their opposition. This was the poll: Poll The majority response numbers as of April 10 were roughly divided three ways between the categorical stances: 'it is immoral/ it is illegal' and two pragmatic stances: 'it is cannot succeed' and 'it is the wrong focus'.
Poll Two noted above: Exploring the Opposition Mind on Iraq: to the future
This poll allows multiple responses and is public. :jarswim:
voted other since staying or going isn't really gonna make bugger all difference
I don't like this mess, but I still cannot believe leaving now would be good for anyone involved. I think it would turn into a humanitarian disaster that people would have to care about, and the UN would have a great time sorting out the mess.
Azi
P.S. But what I do find delightful is the prospect of the liberals in the US clamoring for US invovlement in said circumstances. I hope they like their crow covered in sand.
On these 2 choices, which government are you referring to, ours or theirs? ~DQuote:
7. Must remain martially committed until government is stable irrespective of the error of war.
8. Martially committed until government is stable and reasonably democratic irrespective the error.
Maybe we should have 1 final democratic act. Simple election by the Iraqi people, blue fingers and all: Do you want the US to leave, yes or no? Count the votes and act accordingly.
Of course, the terrorists probably want us to stay. I'm sure the rest of the world wants us to remain mired for a while longer as well.
Since coming back to the forums, I was surprised that I missed the tones of optimism in your posts before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I voted stay till stable/democratic. But I'm really undecided.
I do think it is wrong focus, but if it can't succeed then immediate withdrawal is the best option...don't see the point of a timetable.
Timetable Withdrawal. Allowing Sunnis to build up some punch before the withdrawal, I'm not a big fan of Genocide... so I'd say let the sides square off against each other in a slightly more even footing. OTH theres probably quite a bit more Sunni radicals than Shi'ites... oh who the hell cares. Its gonna be a blood bath and nobody will be able to stop it.
Sasaki, the point of a timetable would be to give the Iraqis a chance (snowball in hell type) to prepare, and maybe not have their civil war. Immediate withdrawal will leave even more of a power vacuum than we've already created.
It would also give us time to negotiate with the neighbors, etc. "Immediate withdrawal" would be impractical.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Since coming back to the forums, I was surprised that I missed the tones of optimism in your posts before.
But seriously , its like a bunch of cowboy builders have attempted to build a huge complex tower , but they completely screwed the foundations , they can keep on bracing it up or adding little balancing features to temporarily stop it toppling over , but its gonna sink and come crashing down anyhow .
They could however go through the really expensive process of underpinning and getting the foundations right :idea2: , but that means they have to remove the bracing ..... which brings it all crashing down anyhow .
They might just let it come crashing down and hope someone else will step in to rebuild it properly from scratch , but anyone who might possibly consider the job will take one look at the pile of rubble and say bollox to that contract
It is a no win situation .
Its been a no win situation ever since the muppets completely bodged the planning and groundwork but went ahead anyway .
But anyhow , since this is the second recent "what do those who oppose the mess think" topic , how about some input from those who did and still do support the fiasco , that would be a really funny "explore the mind" topic:laugh4:
The problem is and has always been the fact that the administration do not listen to anyone, until it is at least 2 years too late. If they had of surged to start with, maybe it would of been working by now...if they had waited longer before attacking, if they had of worked out how they would stop the shia from going on a murderous revenge filled blood drive... it's hard to point the finger at the opposition to the war and say what would you do now, when in fact, if things were done the way they had said all along the mess wouldn't exist...
the sunni's need to have a leg to stand on if this mess is to be resolved... the other thing people seem to miss is that, maybe the people in power don't want to get along, maybe the shia in government and the sunni tribes want to have a civil war...they don't seem to be making much effort to stop it...
I suspect this is the case. We have a situation where every major group believes that it will get to run the death camps. They have a long history of winner-take-all, and zero experience of compromise. At the moment, from their perspective we are getting in the way of their righteous cleansing of the infidels, their neighbors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi
Well the iraqi parlement just did the boom thing, this just might complicate things a bit further :shame:
Immediate withdrawl period.
Forces should be redeployed to the U.S. homeland to reenforce port security, nuclear facilities essential public works projects (dams etc), and the borders.
Spec forces, and tactical air strikes can suffice to target terrorists. Sadly we have a big mess in Iraq and its largely due to our conduct of the war, that said its time to cut our losses and move on. there is a slim minority that wants us there, its time to embrace our own democractic ideal of majority rule and leave Iraq immediately.
I say, withdraw but give lots of weapons to every warring faction and then let them fight it out until only one is left so then we can go back in and restart the process which then might have a chance of working.
Voted other. The only possibility I can see, is:
1. Divide the country into 3, there is no reason why it should be kept intact anyway. It's better for everyone to divide it, just like Jugoslavia, USSR and just about every european kingdom/empire.
2. As soon as that is done, replace the US troops with the standard UN peacekeeping/observatory force. They are only there to stand about really, and not "hunt terrorists".
3. Do not, and I think this is very important, DO NOT exploit the Iraqis. Do not force contracts, and do not "steal the oil" or whatever. Doing those things will result in bloodshed. Negotiate with the 3 governments like you would with russia, england, spain, etc.
The only countries willing to supply troops for this "UN" mission would be Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.The fact is Iraq is now an irretrievable mess, and its fate is going to be as the playground for any neighbouring countries who might want to join to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The 2 biggest bullies are going to be Iranian and Saudi, each with their gang and assorted hangers on. The gang we've been supporting will be led by the bully we hate, the Iranian kid, while the bully we like, the Saudi kid, will be leading the gang who've been dissing us all these years. Also, we've got a map saying there's treasure under the playground, but every time we try to dig, someone kicks a football at us.
We've got tired of trying to keep peace with "Kick me" pasted on our back, and there doesn't seem to be many teachers queueing up to replace us. If only we still had young Master Saddam to keep his fellow schoolkids in line.
I'm going to borrow this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I do not believe that. All the three major groups(sunni, shia and kurds) are willing to divide the existing country's wealth equally, which will let a lot of the air out of the bag. When the country is split up, there will of course be an immediate surge from all three groups trying to nick land off each other, and we'll need a NATO force there. However, once that is over and done, a UN force will be all that is needed. This UN force wont be any different from the one in the balkans, lebanon, etc, and I'm quite sure most countries in the world are willing to contribute, just like in those places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
This is, of course, assuming that everything goes as hoped... It's just a chance of it happening this way, but I don't see any other solution, to be honest.
Well Hore Tore I cant believe I am going to say this but after reading your last few posts on the matter I am coming to see your point and agreeing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
i think a 3province/state split might actually work but I am not so sure on the time table of stability to the point of UN/Nato countries sending in peace keepers.
Still i am not opposed to this potential solution.
"Other" - and my reply is almost word for word what HoreTore said, split into three etc etc
I've long held the view that Kurdistan should become an independent nation - and that means letting the Turkish-occupied part join, too. I know this will be over Ataturk's dead body, so can't see how it could ever happen....
And yes, the other bits will be fought over by, or volunteer to join, either Saudi or Iran. "Iraq" is a fiction, and always has been.
We should get out, the question is how? And Tribsey is spot on with his cowboy builders analogy. (methinks that sounds too much like the voice of experience :laugh4: )
Voted middle 3 options. One more year, then all bets are off, doesn't matter what the situation is.
This is pretty funny... but not that far off from my real thoughts. If these guys want to sit there and kill eachother off, then let them. As for the remaining 95% (I'm pulling this number out of my rear) of the people who don't want to be collateral damage and want peace, then they need to take care of that remaining rowdy 5% now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
I can actually see Kurdistan becoming a reality. The reason is that Turkey wants to join the EU. Thus, the EU has considerable power over them, as turkey wants to join more than the EU wants it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
As for Iraq, it is a colonial province like the various states in africa, not a nation like england, france, usa, etc. It is not created by the people living there, and thus there is not the same level of unity... It's more like a merger of france and england...
A conservative from the USA and a european commie agreeing.... Is that a pig I see in the sky? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Unfortunately it just ain't so Hore , division of the wealth and resources is one very big stumbling block . The current surge in ethnic cleansing to alter the balance in one region before the referendum is precicely because one group wants to ensure that it gets the wealth from the area for itself .Quote:
All the three major groups(sunni, shia and kurds) are willing to divide the existing country's wealth equally, which will let a lot of the air out of the bag.
For your idea about splitting the contry , how about trying a comparison to the breakup of India/Pakistan/Kashmir/Myannamar and later Bangladesh(maybe add issue of Jammu and Aksai just for completeness) .
Macsen mentions independant Kurdistan , possibly including Turkish territory . But what about the territory in 4 other countries that they also claim ?
Yep , I would be the one saying , I told them it was a stupid idea before they started , I kept saying it was a big screw up when they went aheaed anyway , , I repeatedly saidstop you bloody fools you are making mess of it , I often repeated that only a complete imbicile would be unable to see what was happening .Quote:
(methinks that sounds too much like the voice of experience )
Now I can simply say , bollox to fixing your mess , I told you it was a stupid idea , live with your own stupid mistakes and pay the price for pig headed ignorance .:2thumbsup:
Though to carry on the building theme that I spun off into , there was this fella last year , a very very wealthy fella , he had a nice dream project , a pretty huge dream project right on the sea front , he wasn't happy about waiting 3 weeks for us to finish the airport next door so he got in some great lads who could start the very next day , not only great lads who were instantly available , but great lads who would do it for a fifth of the price and wouldn't dream of insisting that they had it in writing that any extras must be subject to a renogotiation of price .
He was absolutely ecstatic about how well he was able to go ahead with his dream plan , he told everyone in the local bar how well he was going to do and what a bargain he had got himself .
In two weeks I will be going back to start the 3rd phase of the airport development , next door his dream project is a very unsightly expensive pile of rubble that he cannot get any builder to go anywhere near .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: To top it all off , if he doesn't get it sorted very shortly , then due to changes in planning regs he cannot build on the land at all and it will be practically worthless .:2thumbsup:
I prefer "moderate" as I will tell anyone who listens I am more closely associated with the Blue dog democrats then republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That aside, you make a fair logical point, no matter your location or political conviction. :yes:
Actually, it's a lot brighter than it seems. This issue hasn't got a lot(or none at all) of coverage, but every time I have seen it mention, it always mention a shia/sunni/kurd leader who is willing to compromise heavily. I saw a very good news report a few months ago with this topic. A lot of people were interviewed from leader to commoner, and all of them were willing to redistribute wealth to make a seperation possible. Sure, it may go horribly wrong(and the odds may be in favour of that), but as I've said before, it's the only real solution I can see. It may be kashmir, but it could also turn out to become like the separation of Norway and Sweden or, if noone are familiar with that, the separtion of ex-USSR provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well, I'm not really a communist either, but it sounded much better and funnier :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Wouldn't have had quite the same "schwung" over it to say "US right moderate and european left moderate"...
I beg to differ , it gets a hell of a lot of coverage . And not much of it is of a bright agreeable future nature .Quote:
This issue hasn't got a lot(or none at all) of coverage
Hmmmmmmmm....bad anology there ,Chechnya , Osettia , Dagestan , Georgia , Armenia , Azerbaijan ...... and to a lesser extent Belarus and Ukraine , not to mention the crazyness with Tajik Uzbek Turkmen and Kyrgyz regimes .Quote:
may be kashmir, but it could also turn out to become like the separation of Norway and Sweden or, if noone are familiar with that, the separtion of ex-USSR provinces.
I was thinking of the baltic states, ukraine and belarus when I wrote that. Sure, they've had some despotism and plenty of poverty, but none of them has seen a large armed conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Can't really see what your point is here though, are you disputing the claim that states can't separate into smaller states without conflict?
BTW, I know fully well that the odds are against a relatively peaceful separation. That's not my point at all. My point, as the topic of this thread suggests, is that it is the best solution I can see to it. That means I rate it over withdrawing and leaving the iraqis to themselves and have the US troops there for another decade. It doesn't mean anything else, and I'm not saying that by doing things this way, all the people of the world sit in a circle and share hugs and kisses.
The 3 state solution will only work if a fair and just way of handling the revenues can be found....now comes the tricky part, how does one work out what is fair and just?....by popluation? by land size? in 3 equal parts? let them make their own contracts aka FFA every man for themselves?... if a country like Australia cannot work out a fair way of divvying up the money from the GST (goods and services tax) then how can Iraq possibly work out a fair system for oil money?
:soapbox:
If they get it wrong, (and they most likley will...) it might look a little like this...
:smg: :charge: :hmg: :rifle: :end: