You're going to have to contend with the likelihood that the Arabs will not allow themselves to be dominated by Persians. As for Israel, you're correct that you have nothing to worry about....so long as you don't try to wipe Israel off the map. Even if you put aside the fantasy of America voluntarily deciding not to be a Superpower, you will still fail, though I fear you will force the region into a truly major war (which you can blame on the Jews ).
Yeah. That's a nice job of selectively quoting someone. Sean Hannity would be proud of you. Murtha also mentioned redeploying to Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain by the way. Just to set the record straight. There was also the Levin-Reed Amendment which many Democrats voted for last year. Joe Biden also suggests a partition plan.
That plan will only force you to return to a bigger worst infestation a decade from now. Dont run away from a mess you made, confront them.
Arabia has always been the catalyst, the synergist and a spark for major change and upheavel in ancient history. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, all sprung out of our Northern deserts into Mesopotamia. The Hyksos they dismantled Egypt...even the Israelites originated from here. A barren region which results in more people than it could feed...it easily overpopulates and swells over, creating a fierce, pioneering emigration to the fertile crescents and valleys nearby. Islam was just another (and the ultimate) catalyst, by the grace of God...we still have the spark in us.
If you remove the US from the ME, I think the likelihood of a war between the Arab states and Iran increases with Iraq being the battleground that starts the fighting.
IF our civilization depends on the success of stablizing the Middle East and securing a democracy in Iraq, then Step 1: Bush and Cheney resign or are removed from power. The entire adminsitration is fired. Step 2: A "care taker" government is installed in the US for the balance of W's term. Some one that many folks can respect and has not yet been tarnished by the right wing hate media or the left wing moonbats. D ) I suggest Sandra Day O'Connor, but that is just to show where I think this needs to go. Step 3: Implement a draft. Mandatory conscription for 18-21 year olds, must do 13 months service. One month training, 12 month deployment, either at home or abroad. ALL citizens and residents MUST participate by their 22nd birthday, regardless of interrupts to "other priorities." Step 4: Partition the youths into military, international community service, domestic community service. Step 5: Deploy 500,000 military troops to Iraq and the ME region, and an additional 1,000,000 international service workers. Service workers will be responsible for implementing basic services (water, power, education, basic medical) and the military will be responsible for security. This would be a "peaceable" invasion. Step 6: Trials for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. We cannot repair the region if we don't understand what it was these guys were trying to do. Jail time would be appropriate. How about that, Mr. Bush?
Leave now and you have done exactly what Iran wanted you to do in Iraq. The Shiite want the Americans to leave so they can consolidate their power there, while the Sunni would want the Americans to stay and protect them from the Shiite domination. With the US gone, An Iran style theocracy will be installed...Muqtada Sadr (or his ilk) will become Ayatollah Muqtada. And then who will stop them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, this time for real? Who will stop Iran from collaberating with Shia Iraq in reducing the oil flow or even an embargo so significantly that the barrel costs something like $85-$110? Saudi Arabia will not be able to compensate for that by over-supplying. Imagine Hezbollah...with significant oil revenue. This will only trigger more Jihadist/Al Qaeda elements to embark in Sunni Iraq as their base for operations...When they get a hold of WMDs, I can see 9/11 Squared...Whatever resources Al Qaeda had in Tora Bora, Afghanistan...they will have access to ten fold of it in Baghdad. This just my honest analysis of a worst case scenario...You dont think America wont be forced to engage whatever spawns out of a chaotic Iraq, if the scenario I wrote occurs? Is my scenario so outlandish, I think not.
That's a good plan. Too bad he hasn't the power to fire the VP. Although judging by his past action, he might think he has that power. The problem with US foreign policy is clearly the person at the top. Unfortunately we must wait two more years to fix the main problem. 59 million of us blew our chance in 2004.
How is it 'fair' to Bush to assert something that is not true? Many democrats have put forth many varied alternative ideas for how to proceed in Iraq. Other republicans have presented different plans as well. Why are you worried about fairness to Bush? It seems to me that Congress has bent over so far backward to accomodate him and his policies that they have adbicated their oversight responsibilities. No, I think it would be fair to ask for some accountibility. A very conservative concept, don't you think?
Hmmm, Senator Warner came out today against the surge. I think the vote against the surge in the Senate can survive a filibuster.
Mine's easy. Get out now. Massive withdrawal/give up. The country will go to civil war, and from what I understand the Shiites will win. Which is not all bad, because OBL and Al Quaeda is Sunni, not Shiite. But first I'd try the diplomatic route. I'd try to build an alliance w/Syria and Iran and to do that I'd agree to no longer support Israel militarily. I'd use some of the tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to go to Afghanistan to stabilize the country and, maybe most importantly, find and kill OBL. Even if we have to go into Pakistan searching cave by cave to do it. The rest I'd send home. Especially the ones that have been there a while.
Can you cite a few then? I have heard the words "pull back" and "redeploy" and of course Murtha's long-distance "redeploy" to Okinawa but beyond that I have not seen a credible Democrat plan which would address the terror threat faced in Iraq... Tell me specifically what the Democrat Plan is if they don't support the surge in troops as the President proposed? Redeploy where? Do they want the existing troops in Iraq to face the threat alone without additional troops and/or funding? If they favor pull-out please cite a date they are so proposing and how many units? Amazingly and in fairness, it is only the Democrats like Dennis Kucinich that I can understand... though I disagree with him completely at least he is saying pull out now and offers a clear plan (and he voted against the war so he is on firm footing in his statement)... the rest of the Democrats seem to be - at the same time - condemning the president but offering no plan that I can detect that is clearly different from the presidents in confronting the terror threat...
Looks like Al Quaeda in Iraq had plans to hit the US: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2813235&page=1 I'm telling you, we've GOT to go out and kill Al Quaeda. They did 9/11 and they want to do more against the US. We also HAVE to get off Mideast oil. We're financing terrorism, albeit indirectly.
I know you're just tongue in cheek for the most part, but there's really no way it would work. One month isn't long to train someone for a technical job, much less to be infantry. We'd send out incompetent workers and cannon fodder grunts. It takes the Marine Corps roughly 22 weeks to turn a civilian into a combat ready grunt. That's 13 weeks of boot, 10 days leave, then 8 weeks ITB. The Army, what, 17? Can't remember. And in the Corps by the time I got out of comm school and with a basic knowledge of my job, it had been 29 weeks. There's shorter and longer courses, to be sure. But if you're going to institute mandatory service it needs to be at least two years. If we institute a draft there to need to be waivers. Only for things like cancer, *severe* mental disorders (to the point where they couldn't even serve in a non-combat, low stress enviroment), and things of that nature. No more ass cysts.
The Army is 9 weeks for Basic, 1 of those weeks is processing. Then up to 15 days leave, then off to AIT. If you go 11Bravo then it is 8 weeks of training. That is to be Basic Infantry. And if you go into a technical field, be it the Army, USMC, Navy or Air Force, then the training can be up to 27+weeks to over a year. A 2 year enlistment for a draftee would have to be the bare min. And that would be for infantry and a few other jobs that have a shorter training time.
The sad truth is that there are far too many in Washington right now who managed to avoid Military service during that time. Including the former POTUS, the guy who held the White House just prior to W. And of course then you have W and the ways he managed to avoid combat.
Still hasn't stopped the Reeps from demonizing the Democrats as being the party of draft dodgers while they are pure upstanding patriots when it's patently not the case.
I know it hasn't and that begs the question, why are the Reeps so good at doing that and why can't the Dems change that perception?
Wasn't Bill Clinton in the draft, but his number just never got called? A lot different than joining the Air NG to get out of it. You're right. Far too many have avoided it. It's funny how most of the politicians who opposed to invading Iraq had actually been to a war and most of those who hadn't were all gung ho.
I would have to look up Bill's info to see for sure, I know that he went overseas at that time, including a trip to Moscow if memory serves. Of course only those who know war firsthand understand the hell that it is and are far less likely to subject others to it.