Destroy Iraq and rebuild?

Alright this may sound evil, stupid, dumb and/or many other things....

But I want peoples opinions to a solution I believe would work (I shall explain)

Now, it seems that Iraq is just getting worser and worser I mean take that thread about that 11yr old who was playing in a tree and the army killed him for no reason. Now imagine his family, would I be wrong by saying that his brother?sister? or father would want revenge? so now they would probably take up arms and join a never ending war..... and so on....

So why doesn't some one (country) just say that is ENOUGH! destroy the country using non radiational weapons and help rebuilt?

Sure a lot of inocence people would die, but think of the positive effects. No war= people not dying= less pollution= peace and happiness right?

If every single Country agreed to give money to help rebuilt new cities and towns etc.. wouldn't it be the best thing??

Because the way I see it is that Iraq will be still a dangerous and unstable place in even 100yrs so imagine how many people would have died by then for a never ending war.

Anyway, now discuss.

You do realize the so-called insurgents and their like are being funded by the United States ?

Where do you think the terrorists get all those weapons and the money to fight and hide ?

Have you seen that report where two british soldiers were caught wearing arab clothing and disguises...they were driving through an iraq village firing into houses...an obvious attempt to further infuriate the terror campaign. And when caught and arrested by Iraq's goverment, the british sent in tanks and destroyed the jail and retook the soldiers !

The elite have no interest in having the fighting end. Isnt it obvious why ? The unending war on terror means we cant leave Iraq. Heck, Bush is on tv right now talking about if we leave Iraq, it will be Vietnam all over again.

Listen to the rhetoric. Its very apparent what our true intentions are. Permanent bases in Iraq to fight the never ending battles.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by admriker444]

I mean take that thread about that 11yr old who was playing in a tree and the army killed him for no reason.

That was the Israelis, had nothing to do with Iraq.

So why doesn't some one (country) just say that is ENOUGH! destroy the country using non radiational weapons and help rebuilt?

Sure a lot of inocence people would die, but think of the positive effects. No war= people not dying= less pollution= peace and happiness right?

Your logic is massively flawed. Plus, as you highlighted, surviving people who had relatives that your country (USA by chance?) wiped out would want some major payback.

Because the way I see it is that Iraq will be still a dangerous and unstable place in even 100yrs so imagine how many people would have died by then for a never ending war.

And you know who you can blame for that mess don't you...

Or shall I list them?

Yea I understand, thats why I made to the thread to get other opinions.

And I am from Myristate.

reply to post by Zomonoid


My opinion is that you have a lot of research to do.

You have managed to mix up Palestine with Iraq and call for the complete destruction (paraphrasing) of a country, including innocents.

How will this solve anything?

This is your first thread and have jumped into the almighty deep end of a convoluted and highly controversial subject.

Think about what you are asking and saying before you post, this is not an everyday discussion board, this is ATS, and your first lesson is our motto, Deny Ignorance.

Welcome aboard Zomonoid.

Edit: p.s. What or where is Myristate?

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Koka]

Hell buddy-we are talking Genocide here!
There won't be anyone left if you totally destroy an entire country...What would you do then-give the land to people from your country as living space?

Man your way of thinking is making me shake...how to stop revenge attacks-kill the whole family...

How about NOT invading,and maybe trying to get along with this other country?

BTW what will you do to people in your country who want "revenge" for whatever reason?

Kill all of them and their families too?Why not...

SHHEEEESH man-have a little re think please.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by Silcone Synapse]

Originally posted by Zomonoid
Alright this may sound evil, stupid, dumb and/or many other things....

Yes it does, you can happily tick off all of the above.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by DenyAllKnowledge]

First off I'd like to say this is a good idea but for how good it is It's acctually a horrible idea. How would you feel if a bulldozer ploughed through and razed your house whislt you ate your breakfast? Then upon questioning the foreman he responds with "it's for the greater good, you see there's been alot of homeless people in the area so we figured if everyone is homeless then nobody will complain"

Secondly sure Japan is one of the leaders in technology and probably because a hugh portion was destroyed on Aug.6 1945 so they had no choice but to rebuild and upgrade.

and lastly @admriker444 What would G.Dub know about Vietnam if he wasn't even aloud to go cause daddy said so. He had to stay home and play baseball while the real men fought a dirty war over nothing.

back in 2003,
the army engineers could have begun building displaced person camps,
modeled after the dependent base-housing that all major military bases have, with infrastructure, schools, health clinics, groceries/PXs, etc etc.

Announce that Iraqi indigents will be allowed to relocate intothe protected camps voluntarily, in groups of 2000 families at a time,,,
by moving out of the insurgent infested older cities and ghettos,
those displaced Iraqis are opting for a little saner & safer environment,
albiet with a more controlled living atrrangement.

Those who moved into the D.P. camps, would find work in constructing
more homes, buildings, etc in a limited D.P. metro area compromising a controlled population of 100,000 'residents'

As the program developed, became more known, the peaceful Iraqis would be signing up as more D.P. camps were planned & built....
the hearts & minds of the newly democratized Iraqis would have been
more likely to accept a temporay dominance & control by the coalition forces.

The older cities in the 'land between the rivers' would have been demolished to deny the insurgents cover or sanctuary....
only after a migration of the population to new metro sites would larger
areas of new construction on older city sites, since leveled and new water-sewer-utility etc laid out, be undertaken.

the action of re-modeling the cities is a useless program...
wipe the slate clean...& rebuild was the answer...that my Senator and others heard from me but did not pass on to the planners.

they (the war planners) had their own agendas of no bid contracts for the halliburtons, KBRs, bechtells, blackwaters, et al...........

reply to post by Zomonoid


Iraq is functionally an artificial nation and has been since the British invented it in a great act of mischief.

The best that can happen is that US, British, and Australian forces redeploy to Kurdistan to prevent a Turkish invasion and to give Kurdistan new expanded borders.

The western Sunni part of Iraq should be given to the King of Jordan. All Sunni Iraqis should be required to move to that province. Saudi Arabia should foot the bill for the Sunni migration and resettlement. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would take all military and governance responsibilities.

Baghdad should be emptied of all Shias and Sunnis. The city should be turned into an international city state with all Iraqi Christians and religious minorities able to move there. Iraqi Jews would be given the right of return to Baghdad as well. All Kurds would move to Kurdistan including Kurdish Yezidi. Ismaeli Muslims would be allowed to remain to care for major mosques. (Ismaeli Muslims are followers of the Aga Khan). All Alawite Muslims would be required to move to Syria.

The Shia would have a capital city in Bazra, but in an act of poetic justice, Kuwait would be given the entire Shiite area and would hire their own mercenaries to keep the peace and to fight Iran if necessary. A transition force from Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, Oman and Yemen would be a good idea in dealing with the new Shiite south under Kuwaiti rule. Probably troops from Egypt would also be a good idea. Better yet get the Turks... okay, I'm not serious about the Turks.

But there you have it. Divide in three. All parties go to their own piece of the pie, and that is that until the globalists want to terrorise us further and create a war somewhere else ... like one between Indonesia and Australia...

There are oh so many different variations of the same "redrawing the map" theme. Seriously loads. Here's one dividing Iraq by ethnicity (really over simplistic):

Ethnic division

All of these pie in the sky notions are absurd, what maked us think we'd do any less incompetent job noe that in the past

It's always quite entertaining when people try damn hard to give the impression that they know what they're talking about.

reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge


Anyone could have done a better job than the English with the creation of Iraq. But let's shout hurrah for colonialism and its legacy.

At least the map you posted recognises that nation states currently in existence are the ones which can assume legitimate authority in this incredible disaster in Iraq that has resulted from the US/UK invasion. Of course, the USA government would have nothing to do with the plan espoused in the map you posted making it a "non-starter".

At least proposals try to sort out something that might bring a kind of stability, but stability, peace, nation-building - none of these are the goal. The object is chaos in Iraq and then chaos in Iran so as to provide cover for stealing the oil.