What would you do in Iraq if you were President of USA?

[Jack_www]

I was hoping for more realistic solutions. Some of things you guys propose are simply impossible. Like nuking all of Iraq and Iran. It would start world war III if you did that and you would surely be impeached and removed from office.

David Floyd :
Your ideas would not work or could not be done. First in Congress their is a lot of support for Isreal and if you proposed to cut funding to Isreal it would not get enough votes to pass in Congress. Just giving money to Iraq wont do any good etheir. They dont have an army, still trying to from a government and what government they do has is week. The country has terrorists and other people running around the country and Sadam would take advantage and just take over again, and all we did we be a total waste and be seen as a victory for the terrorist and Sadam, that they were right, a high enough body count and the US picks up and runs.

[Jack_www]

The President of the United State is not all powefull. The President has limits on his power and has to answer to congress and the voters of the US. Also not to mention when you take any course of action other nations of the world will react. So please please keep this in mind when you respond.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

"It would start world war III "

with who???

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
"It would start world war III "

with who???

You dont think other nations would just let you nuke the Middle East? Europe gets its oil mainly from their and they too have nuclear weapons. The Russians I dont think would be too happy about it.

Also you have to get two people to authorize the use of nuclear weapons, the President of course and then someone on the cabinet or staff, like the national security adivisor or the head of the CIA.

[Jack_www]

How about you democrats out there? They are quick to critisize Bush for how he has handled Iraq, do you have any ideas?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The President of the United State is not all powefull. The President has limits on his power and has to answer to congress and the voters of the US. Also not to mention when you take any course of action other nations of the world will react. So please please keep this in mind when you respond.

Well, ****, Congress has been a REEEAAL impediment to what Bush wants. So has the Supreme Court. Bush answers to no one but himself, and his electoral minority.

You dont think other nations would just let you nuke the Middle East? Europe gets its oil mainly from their and they too have nuclear weapons. The Russians I dont think would be too happy about it.

As if thats happening. No one will be happy, but they wont do anything - war is too unpopular in Europe. Europe is like a small dog - all bark, all whining, no teeth, no action. Everyone can be bought, especially the Russians. We just have to throw some bones their way and voila, they are our best of friends. Besides. DF didnt say anything about nuking.

The country has terrorists and other people running around the country and Sadam would take advantage and just take over again, and all we did we be a total waste and be seen as a victory for the terrorist and Sadam, that they were right, a high enough body count and the US picks up and runs.

Gee why are there terrorists running around? I didnt see any when Saddam was around, and nor did you! And yes, what sort of dumbass country wants to see its soldiers bleeding and burning in the desert, 10,000 miles from home. The only dying should be done to protect the integrity of the US borders.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I would try to re-institute the draft and then double troop deployment.I wouldnt go crying to the UN either.
We made this mess and it should be up to us to finish the job.If Iraq is to be the front line then we should go for the decisive victory and no more of this"we killed 5 enemy today" crap.
If I lose the election for this then so be it.I really thought GWB was tougher then this but hes turning out to be just another politian bowing to criticism for a few votes when he should be sticking to his guns.

Besides --It takes 5 years to equip and train a new division so we better get cracking cause we will be needing them.

You know- I thought one of our main military doctrines was to be ready to fight a 2 front war at any time.
right now we have about 200,000 men in Iraq and Kuwait-another 10,000 in Afg. --doesnt sound like we could fight another war right now.This disturbs me.

[gunkulator]

If I were The President of the United States of America...

There would be millions of peaches, peaches for me.
Millions of peaches, peaches for free. Look out!

[Japher]

I'd be naked and famous

[realpolitic]

It's obvious we need more troops

How do we get more troops? The President can certainly get them in the relatively near term, by activating the guard & moving troops in. If this continues too long, soldiers will leave the military, so America needs either foriegn troops or to restart the draft. The latter may fail in Congress, and cause enough of a backlash that a new President decides to pull out ,so the best alternative is to get some kind of international force in, not the old idea of "peacekeepers", but as a traditional occupation force. If the UN couldnt handle things, a draft is still a possibility. We should also dump Rummy and Wolfie, for lying and pushing us into this quagmire.

[GePap]

Several things:

1. Go on TV, state this was a war of choice, only inderectly related to terrorism, and that it will take at least 5 years for the US t finally get out.

2. A small increase in forces in Iraq: shift the type of forces: get as many MP's and other forces with better training to hande internal security in there.

3. Go to the UN: get a resolution which gives the UNSC very wide control over the political transformation of Iraq and authorizes forces under UN mandate: push India, Pak, and others to send significant forces in (which can be paid by the UN). US retains oerall command of it's own forces. This new resoltuion also ask for much greatei aid, and gives the UN control over who gets contracts to rebuild. (this is the one step that is significanty different from what the bUshies have done or are thinking of doing up to now..they don;t go this far in their resolution)

4. Use UN money to reform Iraqi army.

5. Start new constitution wiritng convention: hope that the parties don;t fal on each other....

[Lonestar]

(1) Convert all bidding on Iraqi Reconstruction deals to Open bidding....American Companies would win most anyhow.

(2) Hold several talks with the surrounding countries, much like we did with Afghanistan. Even Iran had a say in the post-Taliban future.

(3) Start pulling Army Corps of Engineers and Seabees from Continental USA Bases and sned them to Iraq to help out. Most Construction work on US Bases stateside is done by private firms anyway (Congressional law)

(4) Utilities will be primary concern for the near future, screw oil production. Law and Order. Education. Health and Human services. Then Oil Production.

(5) Suck it up and ask for UN help. I don't care if the words "we were wrong to not be patient" leave the Presidents mouth. We need France, India and Germany's help, not Honduras.

(6) Set up a clearly defined timeline and budget. The American Public would be willing to swallow the huge costs if they knew the Government had a plan.

[pchang]

My Wife Hates Civ

Your post also said, It's a good thing I'm not President. This indicated to me that were you really President, you would not nuke them, since you don't think it would be good to nuke them.

[uh Clem]

Disarming the rebels always sounds like a great idea, but it usually doesn't work out in practice. When the British (quite sensibly) attempted to seize a stash of weapons at Lexington, the locals had something of a snit about it. It was years before they calmed down.

[Ecthy]

what's that avatar of yours? shrub on x?