Here's How I Think George Bush Jr. Could've Handled Iraq Better

Perhaps it could be a base in Iraq then, or maybe a naval base on an aircraft carrier. - Actually, we had permanent bases in Iraq. A couple major ones, in fact. One in Baghdad and another at Al Assad Air Base. By proposing this, you essentially contradict your original argument and subsequent arguments concerning money - Futhermore permanent bases and operations require funding to sustain, funding to rotate personnel, funding for security, and funding to maintain, replenish, and utilize weaponry. -Naval bases are not on aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers come from Naval Bases. When the conflict in Syria arose, we sent a few Naval warships to the Persian Gulf, and this made Russia get a little antsy. As a result, they sent a Naval warship to keep an eye on us. Prolonged presence in a small sea will eventually be protested. It raises eyebrows and makes surrounding countries of Iraq question the limits of our operations and influence. The US could strike at the terrorists when there are no civilians around. But if they're constantly surrounded by civilians, then it's pretty much a hostage situation, and it's the terrorists' faults for the civilian deaths, not the US's fault. But I agree that the American public stands very much opposed to this. - Not a justifiable argument. Terrorists have civilian families which are considered non-combatants according the rules for the Law of War. Furthermore, the majority of terrorists are cowards who routinely blend in with the local populace and utilize innocent civilians in order to further their agenda. Let's use your logic, though. If you're in a bank and it commences to being robbed by a group of notorious, well-known bank robbers, more than likely you become a hostage in that scenario. Pretty much a hostage situation. Now if action is taken to subdue the bank robbers, and in the process civilians are killed by law enforcement personnel, by your logic the responsibility of those lost lives is on the bank robbers..not the action taken by law enforcement personnel. Really? No, absolutely not. -If we blame the killing of innocents with drone strikes on terrorists, simply by the mere fact that they were around terrorists, it's preposterous to think the local populace, let alone the world, will find that an acceptable or justifiable. On top of that, we defeat ourselves. One minute we're telling the people of Iraq we are there to liberate them, help them establish a new government, and new way of life. While the words are coming out of our mouth, we're killing innocent people in their country with drones. Actions speak louder than words, and the bad actions always drown out any good we accomplish. As for the morality of this plan, if the Iraqi government grows strong enough to fend off terrorists, then it's probably another dictatorship. So it seems that no matter what you do the Muslim-Majority countries will end up with either a dictatorship or a theocracy. This isn't a region where secular democracies last long. Muslims seem to like theocracy, so it seems to me they'd be happy with Al-Qaeda in charge. Plus, the US stayed for almost 10 years and they're taking over the country anyway. Since both plans have the same outcome, we might as well select the plan that is more economical. - So it comes down to money, and not morality or purpose in your eyes. -Your proposal in starting this debate was what we could have done in the Iraq War. With each point you make, I'm showing you the answers and solutions are not that simple. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions are limited to the scope of information provided. The majority of Americans only have knowledge of the Iraq War based off what they saw on the Unless you had boots on the ground (and even then, that's not necessarily enough) or were in a position to see the "whole pie", you're making suggestions based on limited knowledge. When it comes morality, regardless of how the country ends up, failure to act in the present is not necessarily based upon what the common or theorized outcome will be. However, if you think the overall outcome is failure, why even present a alternative course of action? Why is this even a discussion for debate? -I have an idea of what's not moral, though - Proposing limitations of how we do / do not act on the behalf of others based on what's most economical. A European Coalition, China, or even another Middle Eastern Dictatorship. Iran would probably enjoy being able to occupy the nation that attacked them several decades ago. The main purpose of the war was to remove Hussein's WMDs, and the second the US toppled his government this goal was easily accomplished. - The European Coalition would probably not want the headache. I can't say much about China, other than I can see them having more influnce in removing American dollar as the universal standard for buying and selling oil. They have recently proposed the idea. If it happens, the value of the dollar drops substantially. You get another Middle Eastern Dictatorship, then so much for the propoganda you proposed we share with them. Lastly, Amercian lives are intentionally sacrificed with the over-all idea of willingly handing over a country to another dictatorship. No. No. And No.