What do you think about following Napolean's example by conscripting all
the Iraqis men and marching them to the borders of Iran and Syria,
keeping them on a work schedule where they have to be at work on time
and do their jobs and making them responsible. Gives them a job and
takes away their time to make trouble, minimizes the threat from the
neighboring countries and makes everyone answerable to some authority so
there is some supervision, which should presumably reduce the
insurgency. It gives some notice to Iran and Syria to behave a little
better. Finally it gives the country a better opportunity to rebuild
without all the military aged men in the country hanging around making
bombs to blow up innocents.

I like the idea. it is a positive solution to a not so positive problem.

interesting mcnbc story

Updated: 27 minutes ago

CAMBRIDGE, England - Iraq’s Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, said
Friday that his country may need U.S. troops for one or two more years.
The statement came after lawmakers in Baghdad backed a drawdown in the
number of foreign troops in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18602895/

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

would you give them 2 years

Sounds like a Bu****e. Why dont we just castrate them and make em walk
around naked? That way they couldnt hide the bombs or reproduce.
Napolean was not a very popular man around Europe in case you never
noticed!!!

That was BuShaite...

Interesting responses. Kansas is thinking, Thank you. Fanta seems to
have in mind something he thinks is a better solution, but I doubt many
people will be interested in cooperating and personally I'm looking for
some solutions rather than to humiliate and emasculate the Iraqis. Adj
ignored the topic altogether, although his response was somewhat
related, having something about Iraq included in there.

Adding to my topic, haven't almost all successful military campaigns
through the last many centuries included some feature of conscripting
the conquered forces? Didn't that go towards securing peace in the
conquered land?

The best, and most successful model in history is what MacArthur did in
Post war Japan. He let them keep their emperor instead of trying him for
war crimes, and respected their traditions, as well as their strong
sense of national pride. You can see the success that achieved today!!
Humiliation will achieve nothing but hatred.

Plus at the end of WWII both the Germans and Japanese were limited to a
defensive military force only, and it was strictly monitored! The Romans
relied on conscripting the conquered forces, so did the Germans, but in
the end they turned on them from within.

And no my first post was me making a mockery of the idea as totally
preposterous. Thats what I thought you were doing by suggesting slavery
and humiliation of the Iraqi people when they already hate us..

I can't offer a better solution, but I tend to agree with Fanta on this
one.

Actually, if a country has enough evidence against them, suggesting they
have or are creating wepeons of mass destruction, it should be the
United Nations leading the campaign. Any action should include the same
number of troups of all those countries who belong to or would seek the
council of the UN. Whether there is known animosity between the accused
country and a single other, or not.

Again, I don't understand how a UN action escalated to a war that our
country decided to get involved with fighting?

If there is civil disturbance, so be it, that is how countries die or
are created or re-created. If there is an attack, then yes fight.

There are so many moral issues with this whole confict and they begin
with fear, fear that America will change or adversely affect the
obedient minds of another countries citizens. And they culminated in
war through fear, fear the those who 'may have' led the attack of 9/11
may end up in power in their country.

These fears will be the death of many nations, if we do not attempt to
quell the governments who fear these things.

Why are other countries deciding what should or should not be done?

Have the people of Iraq asked us, the allies, to redesign their way of
life?

Or just to assist them in the process of democracy, and to assist them
and support them while it is done?

Why do we have any say in how or what they do?

They asked for assistance in removing a dictator, and an oppressive way
of life.

Why do we get to play conquerors? Over the people of Iraq? isn't about
empowering a nation?

Jess, absolutely, I agree with you in many respects. However there is
one point I think you might be missing from my reply.

It is that, "totally according to my limited knowledger", the UN was set
up to, well I guess govern or oversee certain things. One is that WMD
are not permitted to manufactured, neither is chemical or biological
warfare agents. When discovered, the UN, tries, peacefully, if that's
possible, to get to the bottom of it. If not, then those members of the
UN are asked to provide assistance in the form of military and
scientists, etc to do whatever is necessary to correct the situation.
I don't have a problem with this, for what it is meant to do.

What I don't get is how this ended up being a "US War". I just keep
thinking there has always been some political agenda that we are not
aware of.

I'm certainly not in favor of enslaving the people of Iraq. I am
interested in unifying them. The only way to unify them is going to get
them to work towards a common goal.

The culture in Iraq and the Middle East is certainly unlike the culture
of Japan. You are not going to see the same kind of results giving the
same kind of freedoms.

How much respect do you think they deserve when they seem to behave
towards each other with bloodthirsty hatred.

You better get them all working for the same goal, and if that means
conscripting them to that goal then you better do it. If the people
haven't got a job and a steady pay check so they can feed their families
they will revolt. That was well known more than 2,000 years ago in the
time of the Romans.

Some people have industrious occupations where they contribute to
society. Some do now. In the United States when they had a draft there
were exceptions for certain people. Students, the infirm, scientists,
and certain sorts of civil servants were given passes. Most likely some
criteria could be defined where productive people could find some
exemption. Those who are unemployed need to learn to work together and
there must be an authoritarian structure in place.

You may call it slavery all you want, but remember that in this country
there is an authoritarian government in place and you have considerable
freedom. Never the less, here you have wealth or you work. If you have
neither than you starve or beg. If you steal to feed yourself you go to
jail. That is authority.

If you are proposing to let them wander around with no responsibilities
and no money and no hope and with bloodshed all around them, then you
are peculiarly myopic. Unify them and put some authority in place. If
that is not conscription that what do you prefer?

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as
good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and
social advancement of all peoples,


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives
assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full
powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present
Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international
organization to be known as the United Nations.

A Joke Aye??

Jess, Other countries are interfering in the Iraq developmental process.
People come from all over the middle east to do what they can to disrupt
the peace and prevent Iraq from successfully rebuilding their country.

While it might not be our responsibility to resolve this trouble, the
Iraqis are incapable of doing so themselves. Somebody needs to step up
to the plate and try to help. I believe that is what the US and
coalition forces are trying to do. There are no small adversaries in the
region. The insurgency is backed by large amounts of money and
resources. There is a lot to gain there or to lose, both in terms of the
Iraqi people and in their natural resources.

While I do not propose going to war to take over oil fields, neither do
I approve of allowing another country to seize the control by means of
insurgency. In the case or Iran, the Mullahs and their ilk did so in
1979 with the ouster of the Shaw by coup. Now if you sit and wait the
same group will grab another quarter of the world's oil resources and
use it to fund weapons and insurgency around the world. Most likely an
unpleasant result.

It is much better if some draconian measures is able to preserve Iraq
for the Iraqis and they learn to live in a civil manner.

You are right about the cultures being different between Iraq and Japan.
First of all Japan was ruthless and tried to take over the whole Pacific
Realm, They invaded China and killed million. They invaded the
Philippines and killed thousands. They bombed Pearl Harbor Attacked
American interest on American Soil (Alaska) Performed medical experiment
on American POW's and etc. etc. etc..
Iraq did none of these things. sure they attacked Kuwait (used to be
their territory) and attacked Iran (at the bequest of the US) with our
help and our chemical weapons.

There is, was, a lot of difference between them and a people(Japan) who
worshipped their emperor as a God.
The biggest difference however is, was, our leadership (MacArthur) and
the fact that for the first time in the history of the US we invaded a
sovereign nation with a preemptive Military attack.

You seem like a pretty smart dude, but your Bush propaganda clouds your
vision of the truth. What a shame!!!
Peace Im going to bed. g-nite everyone....

The Rape of Nanking......

The extent of the atrocities is debated between China and Japan, with
numbers[1] ranging from some Japanese claims of several hundred,[2] to
the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000[3]. A number
of Japanese researchers consider 100,000 – 200,000 to be an approximate
value.[4] Other nations usually believe the death toll to be between
150,000 – 300,000.[5] This number was first promulgated in January of
1938 by Harold Timperly, a journalist in China during the Japanese
invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses. Many other
sources, including Iris Chang's commercially-successful The Rape of
Nanking, also promote 300,000 as the death toll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://www.answers.com/topic/nanking-massacre

Nanking Massacre

The Nanking massacre, commonly known as "The Rape of Nanking," is an
infamous war crime incident committed by the Japanese military carried
out by Japanese troops in and around Nanjing (then known in English as
Nanking), China, after it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army on December
13, 1937. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although
the period of carnage lasted well into the next six weeks, until early
February 1938.

This Nanking thing is entirely off topic.

I'm trying to bring up the issue here that suggests more formalized
control over the comings and goings of the Iraqi insurgents.

If you can have every one of them registered, as in for the draft, then
you can know who they are and have some measure of ability to regulate
their activities.

If you have a huge portion of the populations on their borders you will
be in a position to reduce armed insurgents entering the country and
smuggling of weapons.

The Iraqis can in themselves come up with a plan to sort out who works
in civil commerce and who falls into the conscription by some means of
qualification. In the process of sifting through the people, foreign
insurgents will be flushed.

Normal controls in a country such as requirement for identification and
justification of entering restricted zones should be in place.
Conscription, draft, addresses this need.
Furthermore, with a hierarchy of authority everyone has to answer to
someone, for their schedule and for their activities. Answering to
authority does two things for an individual, it gets him a pay check,
and it keeps him out of the justice system, perhaps prison.

One more important thing conscription does is to blend and meld the
lines of religion, Sunni and Shia being required to work side by side
and develop symbiosis of some form.