Let 2008 bring sweeping Democratic victories in the House, Senate, and White House.
As things stand, my allegiances are divided virtually equally between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
Happy New Year to you all.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Happy New Year
Labels: 2008, happy new year, new year, Young Sentinel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sentinel,
I would simply like to know what your opinion is on what the policy towards the War in Iraq should be. Respond and we could have an interesting conversation.
~A Moderate
Response to "A Moderate"'s Comment
First of all, let us establish that, as citizens without inside knowledge of the situation, our policy opinions may not be implementable.
The first policy change should be to end the lucrative no-bid contracts given to Halliburton and other contractors. If you don't know about this, let me highly recommend Inside the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasakeran about the Green Zone.
Secondly, we should engage in active efforts to bring the neighboring countries of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to the negotiating table. The UN and EU might also like to have a role in the discussions.
We must meet with Sunni and Shiite leaders in establishing common goals and decide on reasonable benchmarks. We must make clear that our continued military and monetary support is contingent upon their cooperation.
Next, we must, although we may not want to, discuss the situation with al-Sadr, the militant Shiite leader. Only by toning down the Shiite retaliation can we make Iraq a democracy.
We must, over the course of these meetings, never take the possibility of a three-state solution, especially if there turns out to be oil in al-Anbar province. (The Sunnis oppose this solution because they have the least amount of oil. Anbar, however, is a heavily Sunni area, and there are reports that there may indeed by oil there. If the reports turn out to be true, our solution would be much clearer.
The US needs to use the the threat of removal of resources as a political tool.
Throughout this process, the last thing in the world we want to do is inflame Iran. We only have the money and troops to deal with one problem at a time. We shouldn't become sycophants towards Iran, but we should treat it with respect and listen to its opinions. I believe that Iran is dangerous and I don't like Achmadinejad, but we need them on our side (or at least not against us) when it comes to Iraq.
Iran has long borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Pakistan, and they control a large amount of the world's oil. They can cause us a lot of trouble (a lot more than they are now) and Bush is a fool to suggest that we are in a position to have a conflict with them, armed or otherwise.
Once benchmarks and the consequences of their not being met are realized, the US can begin to gradually reduce troop levels. The Iraqi military should be trained well, and wages should be raised to ensure that no lack of people will want to join. These people must meet strict requirements to be given access to weapons.
These are the basic tenets of my position. I would like to see what you think.
I appreciate your interest. How did you come across my blog?
-The Young Sentinel
I do certainly agree with your positions. However, I am at ends over if they could simply work. The U.N., as you be aware signed sanctions against Iraq and Saddam that stated they would be allowed to inspect for weapons, they can't shoot at U.S. planes, etc. When Iraq broke those sanctions, the countries that agreed to those sanctions (like France, not intentional, just only one i can strongly remember) for lack of a better word "weasled" out and chose not to back up their agreements. While ideally I would love for your ideas to come true, I am not quite sure if other countries would truly aid us. To answer your question, I found your website through a series of friends. You may be surprised, the people I converse with are quite aware of your website.
~A Moderate
Post a Comment