It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ideas currently presented on Iraq.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:56 AM
The 6 ideas that are presented on dealing with the situation on Iraq.

1. Rapid Withrawal

2. Phased Withrawal

3. Add more troops, stay there

4. Partitioning

5. Benchmark for the Iraqi govt. and the people

6. Status quo

1. Rapid Withrawal

Pull the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, possibly that would take months to do.
Reason for that, the American people do not support this U.S. involvement.
Not to mention that the polls shows that Americans want troops out immediately.
Rep. John Murtha advocates this plan.
Drawback: Iraq becomes a failed state, possible new haven for Al Qaeda and its allies.

2. Phased Withrawal

Withdraw troops by reducing troop levels yearly.
Ongoing occupation increase extremism and terrorism, anti-American, military stretched thin.
Senator Carl Levin presented this idea.
Problem: can't reduce troops while there is still fighting, increased fighting mostly provokes increasing troop levels.

3. Add more troops, staying in Iraq

Increase troop level by another 60,000 personnel.
Use counterinsurgency methods. Provide security and economic stability. Win hearts and minds.
Senator John McCain is advocating this.
Problem: The U.S. military does not have more troops to implement that idea, also possible problems with recruiting. Training and equiping would take too long.

4. Partititioning

Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states.
Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites can't coexist at this stage.
Senator Joe Biden presents this plan.
Drawback: ethnic cleansing, minorities force to move out. Not to mention that they are everywhere like for example Baghdad. Similar situation to India and Pakistan during their independence between Muslims and Hindus where they fled to safety.

5. Benchmarks for the Iraqis

Establishing the goals so that American troops can leave.
Similar to phased withdrawal, but its based on events not dates.
President Bush presented this idea.
Problem: impossible promises, can't see the future.

6. Status Quo

Where we are at right now.

If you have any new ideas that are not included from the top, please add some. Also, which plan do you prefer and why?

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:08 AM
As odd as I feel saying this, I feel that the Bush benchmark idea may be our best bet. It will help ensure SOME amount of stability, while still pulling our troops out in a respectable manner. The bottom line is we are losing too many fine soldiers in what is seeming to be an unwinable war. We need to focus more on accomplishing a defense force and some sort of democratic system in Iraq instead of provoking people and spreading ourselves even more thin. Basically this is a debockle that we would have been better off never becoming involved in.

This is my first post on a topic like this so take it easy on me!

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by YoBrandonRaps...Basically this is a debockle that we would have been better off never becoming involved in.


Best chance for success is to pull the troops out immediately, and put someone who can keep the people in line in power. Hmm, seems the only person who's ever been able to do that was just sentenced to death through monumental proportions of hypocrisy and double standards. What a shame.

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by deltaboy
1. Rapid Withrawal

Not a good idea the civil war in Iraq would only get worse and chances are that an Islamic nut job would come to power.

2. Phased Withrawal

A bad idea for the reasons outlined above the only differnce would be that the process would be slower.

3. Add more troops, stay there

Adding more troops would play into the insurgents hands by providing them with more targets.

4. Partitioning

Partitioning is the best option of a bad lot and is the course action that I support.
I go into more details in this thread.

5. Benchmark for the Iraqi govt. and the people

This is very close to the Status quo there are to many things wrong to start a list. But I will point out the Iraqi security forces seem to struggle in the calmer southern parts of Iraq. Once the Coalition leaves Iraq they wont be there to back up the Iraqi security forces.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:27 PM
Partioning the country into three is the best starting point. Since most of the oil is in the Shia and Kurdish areas, people feel the Sunnis will be upset that they won't get their share of the wealth. Something I've read about many times in the past in print, but never heard mention of on the major television networks is the "Alaska Solution." I don't know if it has been discussed here much, but I just read another article that mentioned it whilst in my dentist's waiting room this afternoon.

It is my understanding that in Alaska about 25% of the state's oil and natural gas royalties are put in a "Permanent Fund." Of this fund, around 50% of its revenues are distributed equally amongst all qualified residents of the state. The remaining 50%, naturally, is invested again by professional money managers.

If we did this is Iraq, every Iraqi would have a vested interest in ensuring insurgent activity stops, because they profit from the peace and stability which is required for steady oil production. Additionally, every Iraqi will be required to have a real address if they want to collect their royalty cheque - this would make keeping track of them easy, which would aid in citizen safety and the security of the country.

Forgive and correct me if I misstated the function of Alaska's program, I have never lived there and know nobody living there. It sounds like a good idea to me.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:43 PM
I agree Xpert in all ya points.

more troops means more death, more targets and more money being sucked from the american economy.

Stating a goal to leave, will simply tell the insurgency

'' hey settle down a bit, give us 5 months and the place is YOURS! ''

realistically, the USA has create a problem, that ultimately has no sound solution.

If we leave, they win.
If we stay, no one wins, but we both continue to sacrifice our life blood.
whats more important,
giving the finatics a homebase of operations?
or staying the course sacrificing our men and economies to make it hard for them to setup shop?

I get the feeling, with bush meeting israel,
a article saying '' iran nearing the point of no return ''
no bush saying
'' we must isolate iran ''

That america believes the answer to iraqi's problem is the answer to israel's problem.

removing the threat from iran.

Surely, they wont make the same mistake twice....

would they ?

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Agit8dChop]

new topics

top topics

log in