Tommy Thompson

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

I'm not throwing my marbles in with his lot, but he has without hesitation proposed the most logical and sound 'solution' for the Iraq War I've heard yet. It's a shame he falters elsewhere. Has anyone heard of this proposal and what do you think of it? Will it work? Or do you think Mitt will win because he looks like Donny Osmond?

I'm curious.

Iraq

Healing those wounds must begin in Iraq. First and foremost, we must work with the Iraqi government to give the Iraqi people a stake in their nation and stability in their future and give them incentives to live peacefully together within their newly free nation.

Governor Thompson proposes a three-step plan to create stability in Iraq:

1. The Iraqi parliament should vote on whether they want us there. If they do, we have greater world standing to be there. If not, that sends a strong message to the United States on what it should do next in Iraq.



2. The United States should work with Iraqis to support elections of leaders in each of the nation's 18 provinces to operate under a national government. A model much like states in the United States, this will give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds their own pieces of Iraq. The creation of distinct states or regions will form a confederation that allows each group to operate their local affairs in a manner that best suits its people, religious beliefs and culture, and goals for the future. These states would provide representation to a national government that would provide a defense for all of Iraq and an economic infrastructure.



3. We should encourage the Iraqi government to give every Iraqi a stake in the nation’s rich oil reserves. Oil revenues should be divided in thirds among the national government, the provincial governments and individual Iraq citizens. This will create great incentive for all Iraqis to protect their oil reserves, while ensuring that their federal and provincial governments govern fairly. This strategy gives the Iraqi people a place and a stake in their country. And it creates the incentives and motivation for the Iraqi people to rise up and determine their personal and national destiny. This is a proven model currently used in Alaska, where the citizens of that state receive annual royalties from oil production there.

Taken together, these three steps will give Iraqis – both the government and its citizens – an ownership stake in their newly free nation.





:wave:

[griftadan]

no, enless he's the same guy as fred thompson and he changed his first name for some reason.

[spitfirejunky]

Do Iraqis even answer to the parliament?

[gregulus]

Do Iraqis even answer to the parliament?
It seems like religious leaders have more power...

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Which is why a federal system would be better for them. It would let each area be controlled as the citizens see fit

[griftadan]

cue endless border and jurisdiction disputes

[lfantwister]

oh wait like what would happen if there were 3 separate countries?

[Hababi]

If it weren't for Thompson's stupid remark about Jews, and his having the charisma of a moss-covered stone, I would consider supporting him for president. And I do like his idea concerning Iraq. Much better than the defeatist Democrats.

[lfantwister]

defeatist here has the new definition of reality-accepting

[Hababi]

defeatist here has the new definition of reality-accepting

Well, if their own twisted, defeat-minded partisan mind is considered reality-accepting, then sure. But the bi-partisan opinion, and the opinion of General David Petraeus, is that Iraq is not a lost cause. And I'm inclined to believe them above a bunch of opportunistic politicos.

[Iskandar]

But the bi-partisan opinion, and the opinion of General David Petraeus, is that Iraq is not a lost cause.It is without a drastic change of strategy, at the very least.

[lfantwister]

Well, if their own twisted, defeat-minded partisan mind is considered reality-accepting, then sure. But the bi-partisan opinion, and the opinion of General David Petraeus, is that Iraq is not a lost cause. And I'm inclined to believe them above a bunch of opportunistic politicos.
The bi-partisan opinion? I'm a good republican, man, but I know Iraq is a quagmire. There's nothing left to be accomplished.

[Iskandar]

What there is left to accomplish is to ready Iraq for withdrawal as best as the US can. That's the responsible thing to do.

[Hababi]

It is without a drastic change of strategy, at the very least.

Sure, most people seem to agree on this. But most of the Democrats aren't proposing a change of policies, or any improvements, but rather an abandonment of policy and a defeat...

But, the only one who has a morally consistent viewpoint (even if it's dead wrong) is Mike Gravel. He is the only one, so far as I know, who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, and he is correct in that if you truly believe that Iraq is lost then there is no moral alternative than to call for the immediate withdrawal of all troops, because the only thing worse than past deaths of soldiers for a lost cause is future ones. Other Democrats won't step up to the plate, though, which makes them hypocrites (amongst other things). But, until a Bipartisan review board, and until Petraeus, say that Iraq is lost, I won't join the defeatists.


What there is left to accomplish is to ready Iraq for withdrawal as best as the US can. That's the responsible thing to do.


That's what everyone supports though--no one wants to stay in Iraq permanently, and even the President wants us out of there ASAP. But it's going to take time, because as you say, we must make Iraq ready.

[Iskandar]

It's irresponsible to want to stay in Iraq because to withdraw would be a sign of defeat.

[Hababi]

It's irresponsible to want to stay in Iraq because to withdraw would be a sign of defeat.

When the Democrats talk about withdrawal, though, they mean defeat. When others talk about the end of the major US occupation of Iraq, they're talking about the success of the mission.

To want to pick up and go, without any care of conditions on the ground, is most certainly defeatism; I don't see any way around it.

[lfantwister]

To want to pick up and go, without any care of conditions on the ground, is most certainly defeatism; I don't see any way around it.

Most people don't want that. Most people would prep the country for withdrawls

[Reaganista]

yeah but when you're defeated you leave

that's what you do

[Hababi]

Most people don't want that. Most people would prep the country for withdrawls

But what do you mean by prep the country for withdrawals? I don't hear any of that coming from John Edwards. All I hear is "bring the soldiers home."

Prepping the country for withdrawal is what Petraeus is committed to. I don't see any such measure from people like Edwards.


yeah but when you're defeated you leave

that's what you do


Yup, when you're defeated. That time ain't now.

[Reaganista]

Yup, when you're defeated. That time ain't now.
eh i dunno

I don't really have any kind of strong opinion about this anymore

[Iskandar]

But what do you mean by prep the country for withdrawals? I don't hear any of that coming from John Edwards. All I hear is "bring the soldiers home."

Yup, when you're defeated. That time ain't now.
1) What if you're of the opinion that there is nothing more the US can do to benefit Iraq?

2) Do you really think the US is accomplishing anything in Iraq?

[Hababi]

1) What if you're of the opinion that there is nothing more the US can do to benefit Iraq?

Then what more will they accomplish in a month or two? If they are accomplishing nothing now, then they will in no way shape or form be able to equip Iraq in the next month or two. If the war is a lost cause, then there is no choice but to withdraw immediately.



2) Do you really think the US is accomplishing anything in Iraq?

Absolutely. The surge has reduced violence and increased stability. If we further intensify troop levels, this will continue.

[Iskandar]

Then what more will they accomplish in a month or two? If they are accomplishing nothing now, then they will in no way shape or form be able to equip Iraq in the next month or two. If the war is a lost cause, then there is no choice but to withdraw immediately.Okay, fine, just withdraw in that case.
Absolutely. The surge has reduced violence and increased stability. If we further intensify troop levels, this will continue.Do you really think brute force will solve this?

[Hababi]

Okay, fine, just withdraw in that case.

So then aren't Democrats like John Edwards hypocrites?


Do you really think brute force will solve this?

I wouldn't call it brute force, but I think the surge will help it.

[Iskandar]

So then aren't Democrats like John Edwards hypocrites?Wait, how are you arguing they are hypocrites? I wasn't following that line of the discussion.
[QUOTE=I wouldn't call it brute force, but I think the surge will help it.[/QUOTE]The surge is brute force ... the idea is that more soldiers on the ground will mean more stability and less violence.

Whatever your views on Iraq, you have to admit the truth that America cannot just pummel the nation into submission. If the war can be won, it is through development and education. People won't be suicide bombers when they have no reason to be.

[Hababi]

Wait, how are you arguing they are hypocrites? I wasn't following that line of the discussion.


They're hypocrites because, as you conceded, if the war is a lost cause now, there is nothing the US would be able to do in the next two months to better prepare Iraq for post-occupation life. If it's wrong to remain there, then the only option is to pull out now. Anything less is hypocritical.


The surge is brute force ... the idea is that more soldiers on the ground will mean more stability and less violence.


To me, brute force would be installing a dictator :p But that's a bit of semantics, I suppose.


Whatever your views on Iraq, you have to admit the truth that America cannot just pummel the nation into submission. If the war can be won, it is through development and education. People won't be suicide bombers when they have no reason to be.

Oh I agree with you, but that's the dilemma--you can't rebuild education, infrastructure, etc. while violence is out of control :p So, you need more force, until the other aspects are up to par.

[Iskandar]

They're hypocrites because, as you conceded, if the war is a lost cause now, there is nothing the US would be able to do in the next two months to better prepare Iraq for post-occupation life. If it's wrong to remain there, then the only option is to pull out now. Anything less is hypocritical.Well, there's always the option of diverting US focus in the area to assisting the Iraqi government, training soldiers, building infrastructure, just as a gesture to prepare the country for withdrawl. But that idea wouldn't fly in Washington.
Oh I agree with you, but that's the dilemma--you can't rebuild education, infrastructure, etc. while violence is out of control :p So, you need more force, until the other aspects are up to par.Honestly, I've thought for a while that it'd be best to let Iraq work this out on their own. If that means civil war, let them have it. America has failed.

[Hababi]

Well, there's always the option of diverting US focus in the area to assisting the Iraqi government, training soldiers, building infrastructure, just as a gesture to prepare the country for withdrawl. But that idea wouldn't fly in Washington.

Exactly and that's not what Edwards etc. are advocating. They're just following the zietgist in their party.


Honestly, I've thought for a while that it'd be best to let Iraq work this out on their own. If that means civil war, let them have it. America has failed.

Not just civil war, we're talking about genocide. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths, probably. Almost unimaginable chaos. Why not hold off on giving into that outcome as long as possible, until defeat is widely recognized by impartial sources?

[Iskandar]

Exactly and that's not what Edwards etc. are advocating. They're just following the zietgist in their party.Well, bully for them. I'm not Edwards.
Not just civil war, we're talking about genocide. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths, probably. Almost unimaginable chaos. Why not hold off on giving into that outcome as long as possible, until defeat is widely recognized by impartial sources?That might be avoided with a partition ... and even if it's not, it might be better in the long run for Iraq.

[lfantwister]

Not just civil war, we're talking about genocide. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths, probably. Almost unimaginable chaos. Why not hold off on giving into that outcome as long as possible, until defeat is widely recognized by impartial sources?
Keeping Americans there won't do anything except injure them unnecesarily. There won't be a genocide; it'd be a minor civil war. Which it already is. The hostility towards the west is effectively unifying sects; when we leave they'll work it out fairly quickly and get it over with

[Hababi]

Well, bully for them. I'm not Edwards.

Thus you're not a hypocrite ;) :p


That might be avoided with a partition ... and even if it's not, it might be better in the long run for Iraq.

I don't see any way how civil war and genocide can be better in the long term for anyone ;) Can you give any example in history where civil war and genocide was better for a country/region?

But I like the idea of a partition.


Keeping Americans there won't do anything except injure them unnecesarily. There won't be a genocide; it'd be a minor civil war. Which it already is. The hostility towards the west is effectively unifying sects; when we leave they'll work it out fairly quickly and get it over with


Baker Hamilton has much more dyer warnings about the possible future of Iraq.

[lfantwister]

I don't see any way how civil war and genocide can be better in the long term for anyone Can you give any example in history where civil war and genocide was better for a country/region? our civil war?

But I like the idea of a partition. the only problem would be drawing the borders, and agreeing on them It'd just cause more violence, because theyd have another thing to disagree about (and this time winning is more tangible and measurable, which could inspire more dedication to it?)

[Hababi]

our civil war?

That was better than if it could've been worked out without the war????


the only problem would be drawing the borders, and agreeing on them It'd just cause more violence, because theyd have another thing to disagree about (and this time winning is more tangible and measurable, which could inspire more dedication to it?)

It's still worth a try ;) Think about this: no matter what we try, the worst case scenario of it is roughly what the scenario is for withdrawal.

[gregulus]

phased withdrawal. keep only the troops there that need to be there and make the iraqi army sufficient enough to fight their own war.

[Hababi]

phased withdrawal. keep only the troops there that need to be there and make the iraqi army sufficient enough to fight their own war.

Well according to the experts, a whole heck of a lot of troops (as in, at least the number that we have there) need to be there in order to get the Iraqi army up to snuff. If you're not willing to commit to what it takes, then there's no sense in committing to something less.

[gregulus]

Well according to the experts, a whole heck of a lot of troops (as in, at least the number that we have there) need to be there in order to get the Iraqi army up to snuff. If you're not willing to commit to what it takes, then there's no sense in committing to something less.
I highly doubt we need all the troops we have there at the moment to train the Iraqi military. Also, we need to put more pressure on the Iraqi government to actually do its job.

The way this war was mismanaged from the beginning and the ridiculous expectations that neo-cons had for it make me so mad. It's a sad fact that a (relatively) small fraction of a countries population is destroying it, but it is. Our biggest enemy in Iraq right now is religious fundamentalism. How the higher-ups failed to take such a thing into account boggles my mind.

By the way, a phased withdrawal was advocated by the Baker-Hamilton report. It also was staunchly opposed to offering our assistance to the Iraqi government for an infinate amount of time. The question is when to pull the plug. When is it lost.

[Polishfarmboyskid]

STFU STFU STFU
STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU
STFU STFU STFU

Walltext walltext wall textSTFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU

Walltext walltext wall text

Walltext walltext wall textWalltext walltext wall text
STFU STFU STFU
STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU
STFU STFU STFU

Walltext walltext wall text
Walltext walltext wall textSTFU STFU STFU

Walltext walltext wall text

Walltext walltext wall text
Walltext walltext wall text
Walltext walltext wall text
Walltext walltext wall text

[Iskandar]

That was better than if it could've been worked out without the war????
I'm no expert on American history but i doubt the South's secession could have been worked out without some military action.

Iraq certainly isn't going to be solved by diplomacy. Shi'a militants funded by Iran aren't going to sit down with a US-friendly government.

[Hababi]

I'm no expert on American history but i doubt the South's secession could have been worked out without some military action.

Oh no I'm not saying we should've let the South secede but what if the South would've taken steps to avert it and compromised?

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I actually really like this guys plan a lot, its easily the best idea I've heard yet concerning Iraq.

[Iskandar]

Oh no I'm not saying we should've let the South secede but what if the South would've taken steps to avert it and compromised?Well, that's not what happened, and not what's likely to happen in Iraq.