1,000 dead in Iraq

[Bob]

Dead men milestone. AP number: 1,000 U.S. troops murdered or killed in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

All 1,000 will be in vain if some have their way. We'll find out.

About 50,000 people die each year in traffic accidents.

War on Terror, people liberated: 50,000,000
Iraqi elections: January 2005

[Nick]

You left out "Iraq falls, late 2005"

Originally posted by Lurch1982:
You left out "Iraq falls, late 2005"

To whom?

[Mushroommarioman]

We probably shouldn't have sent troops to Iraq since there was no immediate threat posed by that nation. Of course there's no way to change that decision now. We're already in Iraq and we have to construct a plan to deal with the current situation.

We probably should consider partitioning Iraq into seperate autonomous zones for the nation's different ethnic groups. It'd make it easier for these different ethnic groups in Iraq to attempt self-government and would ensure that no ethnic group could completely dominate the government. We possibly also should consider encouraging the Iraqis to rely on themselves to solve their problems (especially the security situation) rather than relying on us. We additionally could pay influential leaders within Iraq to help us govern that nation. Furthermore, it'd be highly beneficial to bring in far more international support and the backing of the U.N.

Unfortunately neither side seems to have much of a plan. The anti-war side has no ideas for improving the situation in Iraq. They'd basically withdraw and let chaos prevail.

The pro-war side has a plan that involves building a democracy in Iraq, but it probably won't work. The situation continues to deterioriate and we have very little public support. It's hard to see us building an effective democratic government anytime soon.

Given that virtually every nation in the Middle East is undemocratic, we should've had a debate on whether or not the Iraqis were capable of democracy before we sent troops.

It's interesting that the U.S. military is capable of securing Iraq's border, but can't stop illegal aliens from crossing the Mexican border.

[ September 07, 2004, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Nintendo Revolution ]

[Prince Toad]

People die in wars?! What?!

[Bob]

Allawi has great approval ratings.

It's interesting that the U.S. military is capable of securing Iraq's border, but can't stop illegal aliens from crossing the Mexican border.

Sad but true. We need an amendment to the Constitution revoking default citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants.

[Link47]

The US military is not allowed to operate as a police force in the US, so it is left up to those without big tanks and machine guns to keep out the mexicans. Though I see no problem giving the INS big tanks and machine guns.

[Mushroommarioman]

I saw a poll that indicated his approval rating was 26%.

Even assuming that he is a popular leader, the attacks aren't stopping on our troops. The situation actually continues to get worse as we're forced to withdraw from more and more cities. Local self-government (with our outside support) would be an excellent idea since it'd give Iraqis a chance to deal with the insurgency themselves.

We need an amendment to the Constitution revoking default citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants.

I agree. The 14th Amendment currently gives citizenship to everyone born in the United States. It originally was meant to only help former slaves gain citizenship, but currently is being misused. Now the children of people that cross the Mexican border illegally have the same citizenship rights as the descendants of WWII veterans.

[Shane Sacobie]

Why don't they give me big tanks and machine guns?

[Flamethrower Mario]

We probably should consider partitioning Iraq into seperate autonomous zones for the nation's different ethnic groups. It'd make it easier for these different ethnic groups in Iraq to attempt self-government and would ensure that no ethnic group could completely dominate the government. We possibly also should consider encouraging the Iraqis to rely on themselves to solve their problems (especially the security situation) rather than relying on us. We additionally could pay influential leaders within Iraq to help us govern that nation. Furthermore, it'd be highly beneficial to bring in far more international support and the backing of the U.N.

Doesn't the whole division of ethnic groups just mean Israel part 2?

[CaptHayfever]

^^Because that would make too much sense.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Nick]

Let me clarify. The current Iraqi government cannot contain or supress the insurgants in their borders. You're fooling yourself if you think the violence in Iraq is overblown (more like underreported) and that it'll magically stop when they have elections or the US leaves.

Breaking off Kurdistan would be a smart move. Granted, there are reasons keeping Kurdistan attached, but doing it now would save future generations from dealing with (at best) a Quebec or (at worst) a former Yugoslavia.

Yeah, most of the (real) polls I've seen put his approval rating fairly low.

Check Ebay. They were selling F-18s and MiG-29s a few months back. Don't see why you couldn't get an Abrams or something.

Depends how you divide them. When Czechoslovakia split after the fall of the Iron Curtain, they split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This was done on an ethnic split. Look at the former Yugoslavia...each one of those nations were ethnically split. Granted, most have natural borders (which Israel didn't) and most weren't patchworks (which Israel/Palestine was).

MMM brings up an interesting point though. No democracy has florished in the Middle East (except Israel, but they don't count). Look at the longest standing power: Jordan. The reason they survived for so long is due to the absolute power of the monarch and the sometimes heavy-handed tactics used by the military/police.

To go to a more realistic situation: what happens if/arguably when the Iraqi people elect a fundamentalist government to power similar to the one in Iran?

[Mushroommarioman]

Doesn't the whole division of ethnic groups just mean Israel part 2?

Can you elaborate?

Breaking off Kurdistan would be a smart move. Granted, there are reasons keeping Kurdistan attached, but doing it now would save future generations from dealing with (at best) a Quebec or (at worst) a former Yugoslavia.

The Kurdish region of northern Iraq has actually been an autonomous zone with its own self-government for years. We could probably officially give it a limited degree of independence without having to worry too much.

Depends how you divide them. When Czechoslovakia split after the fall of the Iron Curtain, they split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This was done on an ethnic split. Look at the former Yugoslavia...each one of those nations were ethnically split. Granted, most have natural borders (which Israel didn't) and most weren't patchworks (which Israel/Palestine was).

Northern Iraq is almost entirely populated by Kurdish tribes. Southern Iraq is almost entirely populated by Shiite Arabs. These two regions could become seperate autonomous zones that would not be ethnically diverse. The small number of minorities that would reside in these autonomous zones could have certain protections in the Constitution and could receive special assistance from us, but I doubt they'd be a major problem.

We could alternatively just pay ethnic minorities of certain regions to move to the autonomous zone where their ethnic group has power. I realize this isn't an ideal arrangment, but it's better than leaving ethnic minorities vulnerable to attacks from the hostile majority.

Central Iraq is mainly populated by Sunni Arabs, but there are many Shiite Arabs residing in that region as well. I suppose we could make central Iraq into an autonomous zone with a power sharing arrangement between the Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs.

Iraq was previously apart of the Ottoman empire. The different regions of Iraq (northern Iraq, central Iraq, southern Iraq) actually were fairly independent from each other during that era and were not really linked together. Given that these regions were distinct from each other in the past, dividing Iraq into autonomous zones wouldn't really be a ridiculous idea.

There are many cultural reasons why Middle Easterners have not built many democratic nations in recent times. Given that Iraq isn't very different from other Middle Eastern nations, it's unlikely that the Iraqis will be much more successful in building their own democratic government.

To go to a more realistic situation: what happens if/arguably when the Iraqi people elect a fundamentalist government to power similar to the one in Iran?

Then we let them have their government. Are we going to fight a civil war to keep a religious government from taking power? If yes, then who do we support?

[Koga]

I suppose we could make central Iraq into an autonomous zone with a power sharing arrangement between the Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs.

I really don't think that's possible.

Also, the problem with a Kurdish state, is that Kyrds from surrounding countries (Turkey) also want their own state. Turkey has been fearing that since the beginning of this war.