Question: New PRes, War in IRAQ

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XNine, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #1
    Alright, this is a hypothetical question, and I know a lot of people in here are HUGE political buffs.

    1. If we get a new president, and he gets into talks with the figure heads of the muslim extrmists (suicide bombers and militia) in IRAQ about pulling our troops out and agreeing to help rebuild the country, by providing food, medical, and construction, in exchange for the attacks to stop, would this be considered as "mutiny?" I can't think of the exact word cos I'm on 3 dayquil pills right now...

    2. Does this seem plausible?

    3. Would this President be a republican or a democrat?

    4. How would YOU feel about something like this?
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #2
    Is the exact word you're thinking of perhaps "treason"?

    I don't know how to answer, because your proposal is wildly theoretical. There really isn't one "group" or organization of terrorists you can negotiate with. That's the biggest hurdle.

    Then you've got the idea of negotiating with terrorists at all. I see your reasoning, but that's setting a really dangerous precedent.

    A Democrat would probably never do something like that. You might think that a Republican would absolutely never do anything like that, but then I remember a certain clueless president and something about "arms for hostages"....

    How would I feel about it? Uneasy. I think you're much better off announcing that the U.S. is getting out of Iraq as soon as is practical, and thereafter taking a "hands off" approach towards the idea of nation-building in the Middle East. You can't become completely detached (e.g. Iran), but you can stop interfering the way we have in Iraq.
     
  3. XNine thread starter macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #3

    Yes, I did mean treason. Thank you, my head is all over the place right now, I stared at my keyboard for about 2 minutes earlier... and again at a car outside.

    Thank you for your input. Yes, my questions were very out there, but I was just seeing if the majority would rather have this or keeping our troops in there... :) I'll keep checking backj to see if others reply.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    :)

    i see what you're on about in your questions. to the extent that there would be something as formal as a treaty, no. but it seems to me the only reasonable course of action for the US is to truly start being the good neighbor: stop meddling in others' affairs and offer aid / education / non-military manpower at every turn.

    it sounds isolationist, but that's not what i mean.

    maybe i'm not sure what i mean. hey, there's a blue car outside.
     
  5. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #5
    1. No, it wouldn't be treason. It would be ending the war with a negotiated outcome. Of course, we're fighting terrorists, which means there are no rules - according to W. But we're still at "war", so we still have to spend truckloads of money on blowing things up. We've engaged in a no-win scenario.

    2. No. I was tempted to leave this just as "no", but I want to ask, "why?". I think Bush has framed it so well in "good vs. evil" terms that any kind of compromise will be seen as negotiating with Satan himself.

    3. Only Nixon could go to China.

    4. I think it's got a better chance of working than our current strategy of blowing things up and igniting religious wars.
     
  6. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #6
    The US President could definitely negotiate with the Iraqi "freedom fighters" if they wanted too. If they signed any treaty, congress would have to ratify it. Pretty unlikely given where we are now, but who knows.

    I think public reaction would depend upon the terms of the deal - like if Bush offered all of the insurgents amnesty and future participation in elections in return for a cessation of hostilities, I'd be all for that and I think a lot of people would be relieved. Of course if that led to "Zarqawi, the president-elect of Iraq" then it would be seen like a surrender.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Treaty? With whom?

    Bush can't offer an amnesty: he's got no business and no proper authority to be in Iraq. I think the best thing he could do is behead himself.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    I hear we're negotiating with them now. Mostly talks with Sunnis to stop supporting the al Qaeda in Iraq people and join the political process. Dunno what's being offered in exchange though...

    I would bet if a Democrat did it though, we'd be hearing all kinds of noise about 'negotiating with terrorists'.
     
  9. XNine thread starter macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #9
    Thanks for the input fellas.

    I was just thinking this morning, being all doped up on dayquil and what not, that it would be really cool if our next president talked to Zarqawi or whatever the hell that guys' name is, and is like:
    "look, the last president was a total jerk off. I know that, you know that, we all know that. How about I pull all of our troops out, except for the one that will help with medical, construction, and food distribution, and you call off your militants. The US with even give $x for the next few years to the new government. What do ya say?"

    I know its very far fetched, probably just the dayquil. But I think if something like that were to go down we could quite possibly still get out of this without a huge loss of life (well, sorry, even further than we already have) and gain a little ground on our reputation. Possibly even stop, as zimv20 said; "meddling" in others affairs.

    Now for some nyquil. It might just help me get some "z's"
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Not that route. Seriously, **** Zarqawi. That guy needs to wind up dead or in jail. The people we need to talk with are the Sunni insurgents, not the al Qaeda insurgents. We need to drive a wedge between them by offering a productive path out of violence for Iraqis -- not for people like al Qaeda in Iraq.

    If we could turn the Iraqi populace against Zarqawi it would help a whole lot more than promising anything to someone who'll just sell you down the river. I doubt there's anything we're willing to give that would satisfy Zarqawi.

    Funny thing is, the Sunni's were the secular Islamic rulers of Iraq. The Shia are going to be the religious Islamic rulers of Iraq -- and Iran. Heck of a job Bushie...
     
  11. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #11
    Exactly - there is plenty of room for negotiation with the Sunnis. Like most people, they want self-determination. We could offer them a province of Iraq in return for a cessation of hostilities and free and fair elections every five years. Then all the soldiers on both sides could go home. We are currently offering them participation in the provisional government, but for plenty of Sunnis I'm sure that seems like a hollow promise.

    But there is very little room for negotiation with Al Queda. The head of JI in Indonesia, when asked how the west could stop the violence, said "Convert to Islam". Their goal is a billion-strong Islamic state that spans the middle east and Asia. Giving them anything that moves them closer towards that goal is basically appeasement, and that's pretty much the only thing they want.

    By the way, your question is a very good one, and is exactly how conflicts get resolved - thinking about what both parties want and whether a negotiated solution is possible.
     
  12. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #12
    Better than our going in on the false promise of a better Iraq. Now that we are in so deep, we have generals saying that the destruction that we wrought is the problem of Iraq to correct. That we destroyed their country, and divided their people, for what purpose?

    Oops, sorry started to sound like I was talking about what the Republicans did to the poor and middle class in our nation... forgot we were talking about Iraq.

    Our Bible loving President forgets one lesson taught to the very young Christian, that you can not remove the log from your neighbors eye - if you have a splinter in your own.

    Damn hypocrites these Bible thumping conservatives are IMO!!!

    I am tired of seeing "preachers" in better clothes than I can ever dream of. Having homes that can shelter 3 or 4 families.

    Telling me that I am not living my life the way it should be lived. Do they not hear that one should not judge? Less they be judged? Or are all them only telling us what they want us to hear?

    The true fundamental belief is that is up to us as individuals to hear "God's Word" and act upon it in our own way. And in the end of our days, that is how we'll be judged.

    We as a nation are hypocrites. We go after Saddam, because it was "safe". And that some other dictators are a financial benefit to our companies. Others we only rattle words at because we know that we would "loose" to them in the "final fight".

    We have become the rich bully in the playground.
     

Share This Page