The Only Solution For Iraq

D

DrawDown

OK, the subject may have already been discussed but... due to the circumstances in Iraq, time to revisit this solution.

Obviously, terrorists/insurgents/what have you plan on fighting this "war" forever, making Iraq the battle front.

Consequently, the USA/allied forces will never "win."

WMD were never found - Saddam was apprehended... and brought to trail.

Solution: Put Saddam back in power.

Attempt to offer him amnesty (drop the charges against him) in exchange for him using his "influence" to quell the violence.

Saddam's not a "terrorist," per say, according to the strictest definition - at least this charge was never established against him.

Perhaps, with Saddam as functioning President of Iraq again, the whole region can be turned back into the way it was before he was "toppled" (read much less violent).

It's worth a try.

Since he seems to be the only one who's been able to keep the violence quelled - at least THIS level of daily bloodbath violence.

What other choice is there?

Thoughts?

DD
 
The goal of Bush administration is endless war to feed the military industrial complex and keep the sheeple in fear, and endless occupation to establish US presence permanently in Middle East.

You don't really believe these guys are really thinking of leaving those oil fields....do you?

It is just a "coincidence" that the US has armed forces on either side of Iran?
 
Quote from DrawDown:
Solution: Put Saddam back in power.

Attempt to offer him amnesty (drop the charges against him) in exchange for him using his "influence" to quell the violence.
More...
Not sure if I understand. You mean withdraw all US forces and personnel and then put him back in power so that he can 'quell the violence'? What would be the upside for the U.S. in this scenario??
Quote from DrawDown:
Saddam's not a "terrorist," per say[SIC], according to the strictest definition - at least this charge was never established against him.
More...
It would be interesting to find out which ET member created a brand new alias just in order to make this post.
 
Quote from traderNik:

What would be the upside for the U.S. in this scenario??
[/B]
More...

The upside would be that we own the country and saddam is our puppet. He can get away with alot of shit that we couldnt, like abu ghraib and he would look bad and not us. We get him to do the dirty work and he gets the bad worldly publicity.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

The upside would be that we own the country and saddam is our puppet. He can get away with alot of shit that we couldnt, like abu ghraib and he would look bad and not us. We get him to do the dirty work and he gets the bad worldly publicity.
More...

Sounds like a plan!! The U.S. should definitely go for that. It would be great to own the country!!
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

The upside would be that we own the country and saddam is our puppet. He can get away with alot of shit that we couldnt, like abu ghraib and he would look bad and not us. We get him to do the dirty work and he gets the bad worldly publicity.
More...
You got it, PTT!

Putting Saddam in our pocket. We keep our oil/regional military positions. We get to reduce troops to, like, 10% of what we got there now.

We kinda make Saddam the new Sheriff (he knew how to handle rebels ;-)).

Since Iraq is so pivotal a country, much more can be done "working with" Saddam... than by fighting the insurgents.

After all, Saddam stands for "anti-USA" sentiment. What better way to win the war than to have its surpreme ruler working for the USA? :D

dd
 
Didn't we do that with the Shah of Iran?

That didn't work out too well for us, if I recall... cost Jimmy his presidency too!
 
Quote from Ricter:

I came. I broke it. I left.
More...
That's what President Bush wants to say about the Iraqi insurgency.

And with all the terrorist bombings there, surgeons are doing plenty of surgency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top