if you've read my posts you know my policy. but i have'nt elaborated on post-invasion plans. afterwards we need some type of "marshal plan" for iraq and the middle east. really the only long term solution is to bring these peolpe out of poverty, but there still remains issues with this 1) people in middle east are skeptical of our help and view it as american imperialism and exploitation. 2) the leadership over there sucks for lack of a better term, and they generally hoard all the riches from oil profits while their people starve, and if we ever attempted to seriously financially aid, i could see russia and the imf all over again (but the imf/world bank are just ways we exploit and take advantage anyway, right, LOL) to solve #2 we need to foster democratic elections and in some extreme cases with a tyrant like sadam we can remove him with the afghan model. #1 is difficult, but there are many people fromth emiddle east who perhaps move and even come to america who are succesful in business, academics, etc...they should bear some responsibility of educating their people to embrace capitalistic reforms, and show them how it will benefit them. case example for anyone not convinced: johnny "homocide bomber" is so desperate and miserable in life he becomes easily brainwashed into believing blowing himself up and getting his family 10,000 sheckles is the best alternative. obviously he is desperate and has nothing to live for if he is turning to these measures, and remember, its only a matte rof time before these a-hole homocide bombers show up over here. now, post marshal plan, if we can get a few sheckles into johnnys pocket, maybe he has a hot date for the big dance on sat., maybe he's saving up for that new car, or maybe he has a golf match with his buddies on sunday, now he has something to live for and will leave us alone, and in the long run benefit us by buying american goods, or creating better cheaper goods that we can buy from him. nuff said.
Agreed. But if the U.S. were willing to do adopt substantially new long-term postures, all of this would be moot. This entire discussion relies on the assumption that the policies that underlie the global hatred of the U.S. will not be changed, and that the best that can be done is to mitigate the certain damage. (as we were lectured to, ad nauseum, by the administration and the pundits: "if the American people change anything, the terrorists win" right?)
Fair enough, sort of. I do not seek students. I do not look to teach. I am hoping to put together a personal plan that I would use if I were able. Yes, I intend to divulge it shortly. It does seem to be based more towards some type of limited strike but I think that this strike needs to be in concert with several other actions taken in the region. It also needs to have a posture of expanded oil procurement from other regions of the world. Notably Russia, South America and Mexico. Combine this with an 25% reduction in the purchases from the Arab cartels. Maybe with a promise of even further reductions should certain international practices and violations not be addressed within a short timeframe. At the same time, I think a concerted challenge in this country to seriously develop and employ alternative energy solutions (like gasohol) to the public would be prudent. As a president, Bush would easily have the support of the public. It's time to expand the fight of terror with the assistance of demands on American technology. I think it could be quickly advanced. But this is just a beginning strategy. There are several other arenas that need to be touched at the same time. You see, I think this war almost needs to be a book of economic changes also. As currently structured, I see it as a shift of dependence, regimes and power. I think it could easily be expanded. So much so that it would almost be impossible to stop the whole plan advancement. To tackle this whole terror/terrorist thing, you need to use the whole of America. Not just the military might. Declare this to truly be a "War on America!" I think that we can effect a world change in that way. Lead aggressively from a technology and war state, not just a military stance. Technology exists to easily convert a good portion of the gas used in the country to a larger blended fuel base. Somewhere it was quoted that the war should costs $100 million a day. Ethanol/gasohol plants exist. Take two weeks of supposed war proceeds to establish corporate cost recovery grants to expand alternative fuel capacity and output in the name of the war, NOW! This solution is but a presidential pen stroke away. The American public would not only support it, they could easily be enlisted to demand it. Resistance, sure there will be. There will be unbelievable screaming, but not from the public. But with the right financial supports, the government can make corporate America a real war partner the right way. Upsetting the status quo? Yes, but this is war! More later!
Why is the U.S. the only country in the world that has there nose in every other countrys buisiness?Are we the only country in the world that has to kick ( kiss? ) ass to get the things we need ( oil )from others?Why don't we become as independant as we can, close our boarders, build up our defense to the ultimate,and sell all of these war crazy countrys our obsolete wepons? Let them kill each other off. It should not take much to get all the mid eastern countrys to fight each other,a little provication could go a long ways.
Hmm, first I should say that I haven't read your posts elsewhere and I hope you could enlighten me if there are some key elements that work with the removal of Sadam. You raise two key points as to why I think we need to do more than just effect this war. There is a lack of trust of America and most possible replacement leaders leave a lot to be desired as leaders of a country that needs to change and grow. With this now understood what do you suggest we do? I also think that those who have left the country there could help with the rebuilding and the attitude adjustments that are needed. But what good are democratic elections if the only pool of candidates contain a bunch of second string Sadam's?
you have to lend faith to the human spirit there are many great potential leaders in the middle east who can get the job done and that arent 3rd string sadams or part of these elite families who only take care of themselves. problem is under the current enviornment they fear harm to themselves or their faimiles if they voice even the slightes opposition to, in this case, sadam. we need to provide the enviornment and security to allow htese people to step up without fear. unfortunately that may call for invasions or use of military, the only language thugs such as sadam understands. i am not going to re-hash my foreign policy plans as tehy are posted all over this site, just click on my handle.
HEy canyon, ive been doing a little research to confirm what i already know was true (and no not to slam anyone on the board, rather ia am a poli sci junkie) we have every right legally under international law to invadeand even occupy iraq. SEND in the marines (special ops prob. already there)!!!!
If I could give a star, you'd get it. That is a fact. I am not a teacher, nor do I want to be. Yet I must say that I have not seen or heard about anyone else who has looked into that fact other than myself. I am sure that many may know that, but no one has used it (that I have seen) as a basis for their argument. It is that type of fact that is not disputable in my opinion. Whatever we intend to do on whatever front, we CAN invade and occupy Iraq. Not meaning that we should, just saying that we legally can. And that's where the basis for all this stuff needs to start. Would you do me a favor? Please put a link here as to the info that you found. Thanks a million!!!