An easy solution for the Iraq situation

[spindler]

Everyone can agree that a huge part of the problem is that the Iraqi politicians have not worked together and compromised to build a better Iraq. Progess is not happening because of endless divisions among the different sides. I have a unique solution for that.

With a few Americans and many Iraqis dying every day, the solution should be that either these politicians start meeting some goals in terms of forming a bipartisan plan to implement, or we start executing them one by one. We should make certain goals for each month, like how are they going to form this or that security division or how are they going to restore power to this or that area. If the goals are met, great. If they are not met, we randomly select 3 Iraqi politicians and execute them. This would give them the personal incentive to stop thinking about only their faction and start forming a solution.

Now I'm not saying they have to do the impossible, but they have to work together to form the best possible plan immediately.

Now you can say that execution is intense, but there have 3 thousands dead Americans and one hundred thousand plus dead Iraqis. For all that carnage, it seems to be morally imperative that the best shot is taken for a better future for Iraq. I see nothing wrong with killing a few politicians if their own interests are larger than the only solution acceptable: getting everyonne in Iraq to live as one country.

[durin oakenskin]

That's a joke, right?

[iPoster]

:wow:
:no:

There just aren't any words for that....

[spindler]

Of course this is not a joke. These politicians are having their little feuds instead of working together. They have as little unity as the Republicans and Democrats, but the difference is that someone else fought a war for them to attempt to save their country.

Because of what these politicians are doing hundreds of thousands might die in a civil war. They have the opportunity to prevent that and to do the best for their country. Instead they are just sticking to their side and not giving an inch.

You guys are saying it is the unthinkable to kill 20 of these politicians? How about the 100,000-5,000,000 Iraqis that might die in a civil war partially or largely because they cannot get their act together?

The entire future of 25,000,000 Iraqis is on the line, and possibly even more of the entire mideast. We should use whatever means necessary to get the best possible results. It is perfectly fair to use whatever force we have to to get these people to do the best job they can.

[MacRR]

I never thought I'd say this, but even rumsfeld's plan (or lack of) is better than yours....

[durin oakenskin]

... or Saddam's, for that...

[spindler]

Are you guys saying that in PRACTICAL terms, that my idea wouldn't generate good results for Iraq? Forget about the morality of executing a few people (to prevent 1000x more from dying) for a second. I'm just talking about results. Wouldn't FORCING these guys to come up with the best possible compromise be better than letting them argue for years and get nothing done?

Are you guys saying that if these politicans had their own lives on the line that they wouldn't be working together much more? Are you saying that if these guys had a 1% chance of dying if they didn't meet their reasonable goals, it wouldn't make them work for a solution much more?

BTW I am just making the same arguments that liberals have been making. I think if American politicians and voters are willing to send other people off to die in a war, that's OK, but only if they would do the same, as in the draft. I think Bush and Cheney's lives should be on the line at least a little bit too. If they send other people off to war, to prevent that, they should have at least a 1% chance their kids might have to serve.

It's the same with Iraqi politicians. Their lives are not on the line, but the life of the average Iraqi citizen is. These politicians shouldn't be free to do what they are doing regardless of the consequences for others and not themselves. Their lives should be on the line and tied to Iraqis lives, just like Americans shouldn't put the troops lives on the line unless they were willing to put their own lives on the line.

[lunocrat]

Now that 'Murder Spree' Olmert and the Israeli soviets have Americans comfortable with open assassination and the homicide of people they don't like, who can be surprised by the fascist call of a Spindler for the right of the United States to murder Iraqis. And you wonder how Hitler got away with it? Cut the crap. We're there now. Suspend the Constitution and you have dictatorship. And the S F Values quartet is there to help you.

[thuh Freak]

Your folly is assuming that the politicians have the power to fix the situation. I don't think threat of murder will give them the power.

[BRussell]

Your folly is assuming that the politicians have the power to fix the situation. I don't think threat of murder will give them the power. Yup. Nor would the threat of being murdered by the US give them or the people the feeling that they have autonomy over their situation, which is necessary before a political solution could ever be successful.

Basically, we've already tried this - we took out their previous leader (Saddam) for not cooperating with us. Look how successful that was.

[sammi jo]

Pull US troops out now, and much of the insurgency will lose its impetus, for lack of focus and targets. After the troops leave, sectarianism will, for the short term, probably cause more chaos than currently, but in a power vacuum, a strongman/dictatorial figure will eventually emerge and things will gradually stabilize. Probably the best Iraq can hope for in the foreseeable future is something like what Pakistan currently have, with dictator Musharraf Sure, he's a pretty evil man but Pakistan is relatively stable right now. It's going to take a real hard-assed character (with a cadre of equally hard-assed minions) over there to sort things out, and all the big decisions must be seen by Iraqis to come from 100% independent Iraqi figures, independent of either a US occupancy, or even diplomatic pressure. Anyone who comes across as a "Western puppet" will never manage or even survive, and that will be equally the case be they Shia, Sunni or Kurd. Iraqis don't even think the same way as westerners, and to impose democracy US style, by force, will forever be doomed. The Middle East nations must be allowed to evolve at their own pace; forcing things in that region has been a 100% failure in the last 50 years, even before Iran's elected PM Mossadegh was ousted in a CIA sponsored coup.

Iraq, as well as the rest of the M.E will eventually come around, as the world becomes "smaller and smaller". What Middle East governments need desperately is broad and frequent communications and interfacing with the west, culturally, diplomatically, financially, spiritually... The only thing they do not need more of is military intervention and trade sanctions, under any circumstances. Iran's Ahmadinejad might verbally rattle away against Israel, but isolating him for such is the worst possible approach. Some folks (think NeoCon) seem to want conflict with Iran.. and threats, isolation and sanctions is the surest way of getting things to go downhill, fast.

Unfortunately, the greatest gains for warmongers come from states of unrest and strife, and it is warmongers and psychopaths who have been able to make the vital decisions in the M.E. for several decades now. They have had it so good now for so long. Does anyone in the arena have the courage to stop behaving like middle-schoolers on the playground, and do something constructive, for a change?

:(

[MacRR]

I just can't wait until oil becomes as useful an energy source as whale blubber... then let's see what happens in the mid-east.

[groverat]

Wait... what?

[@_@ Artman]

14 permanent US military bases. 5 US Navy fleets patrolling trade routes. Forcing the implementation of US dollar as the World Reserve Currency and standard oil trading platform.

These have been the goals for the US for six years and nothing will change that. Unless we all start riding bicycles.

I think this explains our predicament well. The History of Oil by Robert Newman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967).

/it's all about the black gold

[Outsider]

If we can't use it in the US, we shouldn't use it in Iraq.

[shetline]

I have this great plan to solve the deepest mysteries of physics, to once and for all unify all forces, to completely reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics in one single, simple and elegant equation...

I'm going to gather the world's greatest minds from the forefronts of mathematics and physics, assembling them to work together as a team. If they do not reach a solution in one month's time, I will then pick, once per week, one of these geniuses at random and execute him while his colleagues look on. If one of the very best of the best minds is chosen, someone we can't afford to lose right away, the first three times such an individual is chosen representatives from among his friends and family members will be used instead, before execution being severely tortured while the genius who is being spared is forced to watch.

Should this motivation prove insufficient to reach a solution after six months, the executions will accelerate to a rate of one per day.

"I know you've got the answer! Come on, spit it out! What's the matter, Hawking? Cat got your tongue!?"

Cruel, yes, but come on, I'm sure the results we'll get will give us the answers we need to produce unlimited pollution-free energy, to develop warp drive, to end global warming, to eliminate annoying static cling... think of the countless lives which will be saved! Think of the neat gadgets! Think of the flying cars, for God's sake! You know we have to do this, and it will be worth it! :D

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Right, right. To sort out this mess, we're going to need the committed participation of Iraq's best and brightest. So... let's propose a system that would be more likely to attract them to become greengrocers.

Genius.

[spindler]

I think you guys are missing at least a part of my idea.

There are some things that CAN be done, if you do them. For example, suppose you have two brothers arguing over how to fairly split an inheritance. They could argue for the next sixty years and never give an inch. But if you told them that they must come to an agreement by next week, that both must agree to and sign, or they both will die, then you would get and agreement in a week that otherwise might not happen for sixty years.

I'm not saying the Iraqi leaders have to ACHIEVE any specific goals for the country. I'm saying they have to come up with a PLAN to achieve those goals. The plan, like any plan formed in a democracy, is simply the average of what all the sides want.

If we had to come up with a plan for the fire department for the town, we might argue forever while houses burn down. But with compromise, we certainly can come up with a plan.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

And I think you are missing the point of our objections. Which is this.

Who are you to threaten these two brothers with death?

In the same way, what would give you the right to threaten innocent people with

oh, the whole idea's utterly retarded.

[tonton]

And I think you are missing the point of our objections. Which is this.

Who are you to threaten these two brothers with death?

In the same way, what would give you the right to threaten innocent people with

oh, the whole idea's utterly retarded.

Agreed.

Damn. Apparently, somebody has hit Spindler with the stupid stick and the unethical stick at the same time.

[spindler]

"In the same way, what would give you the right to threaten innocent people with death"

The fact that if they don't attempt to do the right thing, there will be 100000 times as much death.

If two people are captaining a boat and they are the only ones with the possibility to ride the storm out and save thousands of people, they DO NOT have the right to just argue with each other until the boat finally crashes. There is nothing wrong with FORCING THEM to come up with the best plan they can to save everyone on board. They are not responsible for it actually working, but they certainly should be FORCED TO compromise and agree on a plan. They can't be arguing "I'm not going to go with your plan because you cheated me in 1987.". while the boat is going to crash.

The Shiites and Sunnis should not be allowed to argue for the next two years over the best way to set up security forces. They should be forced to agree to a plan. If they were forced to agree to a plan, then they would immediately attempt to find the middle ground between them. Instead they won't agree on any plan that might put their side's goals in jeopardy. But that of course in the nature of compromise.

Again, I'm not saying these politicians should be killed if their plan doesn't work out. The future of 25,000,000 Iraqis, and maybe even the whole middle east is on the line. They should have only one choice in what to do next. They should have to come up with the plan that the two sides can best agree on.

[audiopollution]

Again, I'm not saying these politicians should be killed if their plan doesn't work out. The future of 25,000,000 Iraqis, and maybe even the whole middle east is on the line. They should have only one choice in what to do next. They should have to come up with the plan that the two sides can best agree on.

Erm ... you did mention killing 3 of the politicians if they weren't as quick as you'd like.

I'm considering implementing a similar sort of scheme to deal with inane posts.

[Gilsch]

I'm considering implementing a similar sort of scheme to deal with inane posts. ...:D...