Comments on: How Do You Leave a Country?

By: Achieving Objectives Made Easy! Time Management | Goal Setting. | 7Wins.eu

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:55:45 +0000

[...] anc » Blog Archive » Broker Dealer Journal

Open Source » Blog Archive » How Do You Leave a Country? [...]

By: plnelson

plnelson — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:09:31 +0000

Nope, that STILL didn't work. "Jane, get me off this crazy thing!" How about "this" followed by this?

By: plnelson

plnelson — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:06:51 +0000

… there

By: plnelson

plnelson — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:05:27 +0000

Was than not the tmeme of â€œthe Mouse that roaredâ€ to delcare war on the US was inviting the rebuilding of a nation. We have to repair the broken pottery!

We have already put more money into Iraq than we spent under the Marshall Plan, and for a far smaller population of people!

Anyway WE didn’t break it; the Iraqi’s did. We gave them every opportunity to create a peaceful, democratic society. Invading Iraq was the stupidest thing the US ever did and the Bush Administration is guilty of gross lack of planning. But I don’t think ANYONE could have anticipated the sheer DEPTHS of depravity of the Iraqi people.

Frankly I don’t care HOW we leave – by bus, train, automobile, armored personnel carrier or from the roof of the US embassy via helicopter. But let’s leave NOW!

By: sarahruth

sarahruth — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:28:33 +0000

Those of us who were protesting in the ’60s and ’70s remember that we were a small minority then. Even on most campuses, the protesters were in the minority. Same with the churches. Everyone likes to say they were with the movement, but the reality is that most people were playing it safe during the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and so on.

A minority then was active, but it did make a difference, sometimes in way those involved could not have predicted.

Bush doesn’t like to admit it, (and Nixon didn’t either) but those protests really do matter.

By: yvrdaikqu

yvrdaikqu — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:09:24 +0000

cwnxdkwla kuogebcgi ejioyzdzs tkhmkfmkte gimagjosn hihylappsc

jkenqhoja ygufgkvus ghdjghsuee hjhfcuobis okfuuvry hztydhsjs vwggvympjk avaimtfc

By: Tom B

Tom B — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:18:27 +0000

With no good examples of invading nations exiting the invaded country, how can it be than any policy advisor would push for invading another country? — I can’t help think of Napoleon’s short-lived invasion of Russia. Though his retreat was a fiasco, his invasion was a glorious victory!

By: Tom B

Tom B — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:16:22 +0000

>>> With no good examples of invading nations exiting the invaded country, how can it be than any policy advisor would push for invading another country?

By: Tigs

Tigs — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:44:03 +0000

I, like many Americans, have been mulling over this problem for some time. This is a frustrating issue, since while it is easy to criticize the mistakes we have made, it is not so easy to come up with a good solution now. Just this morning, though, the basic solution, that turns out to be quite obvious, hit me. It occurred me that we have all been thinking about this the wrong way. The politicians, journalists, and even everyone here except Allison is thinking about this the wrong way. We are all talking about this with two things in mind:

- this is an American problem

- it is about security, and itâ€™s a military problem

Both are off the mark. We have broken it, but we donâ€™t own it. First off, we were not ever invited to Iraq. Second, this has always, and remains an Iraqi problem, not American. Therefore, what we need to do is just pull out â€“ not militarily, but politically and psychologically. Leave the military about as it is, but turn the entire process of building a new government over to a group analogous to our Continental Congress. We are trying to force a government on Iraq that is based on our own form of government because that is what we understand. Our government was formed by the Continental Congress at the end of the 18th century over several years. Iraq In the 21st century will require a different solution, but the process can be similar. A majority rule will not work. Until each of the three major groups in Iraq â€“ the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds â€“ feel respected and included, no peaceful and democratic solution is possible. Therefore, think win-win, and think â€œWhatâ€™s best for Iraq?â€ Assemble a congress composed of:

- representatives proportional to population from each of the three ethnic groups — the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. This will be the essential core of the group.

- a facilitator appointed by the president of the UN. This must be someone who holds no current political position and has no vested political or financial interest in the outcome of this process.

- representatives from regional interests such as Iran and Syria

- an advisory group made up of political scientists from around the world, again with no vested interest in the outcome. This group includes at most one American.

This group hashes out a constitution and form of government acceptable to all groups. In the meantime, the military is turning over security over to Iraqis and gradually withdrawing. This will now be more successful than it has been because there is buy-in from all groups.

By: joneden

joneden — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:01:27 +0000

The following is Patrick Cockburn’s prescription for leaving:

“…The building blocks for peace should include the appointment of a peace envoy: probably a senior official from the Arab world trusted in the US and the Middle East and acting on behalf of the UN. He should start talks about calling an international conference at which all the players inside and outside Iraq can meet.

A central theme of the conference should be the total withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq, leaving no bases behind. Any final agreement should be in the shape of an international treaty including guarantees for minorities such as the Iraqi Kurds and Sunni. Finally Iraq should be neutralized like Austria in Europe in the 1950s.

There is no chance of this happening under Mr Bush. The reversal of policy would be too great and the admission of failure too humiliating…”