America in the Middle-East

[ThetaOrionis01]

There's a simple solution to Iraq, but unfortunately the politicians will never allow it.

 

1) Remove all US military forces from Iraq, with the exception of soldiers assisting in the rebuilding effort. But all the tanks/heavy weapons/most of the troops/etc all go home.

 

And leave the country you've destabilised with a civil war as a farewell present. Nice plan. I'm sure the Iraqis appreciate your thought for their freedom and security.

 

2) Begin (honest) rebuilding efforts. With most of the military gone, we can still invest huge amounts of money in this and end up paying less than before.

 

With most of the military gone, there'll be a civil war. Which kind of makes rebuilding a trifle difficult.

I like the 'honest' qualification though. Does that mean US companies will be disqualified from obtaining rebuilding contracts and so profiting from the mess?

 

3) Begin issuing US security forces with bullets dipped in pigs blood and/or fat (I forget which is most effective at staying on the bullet with minimal interference). Therefore any terrorists shot attacking US soldiers will go straight to hell, instead of the heaven they seek. Watch as the supply of volunteers instantly disappears. Additionally, any captured and convicted terrorists will be executed by the same bullets, then burried with dead pigs.

 

Note: this is a proven tactic at ending rebellion. It's worked long ago in the past, and I imagine it will work just as well now. Fear of God is an effective motivation not to bother us.

 

If you truly believe that you are more naive than I thought.

a) if people truly are motivated by such religious fanaticism, then it would not take long for a leader exploiting their fanaticism to come up with something to convince them that because of the added insult to their religion they are now true martyrs, or some such thing... Bear in mind that those leaders have already managed to subvert the message of the Koran - do you really think they'd not find a way around that?

b) not all terrorists are driven by religion. Some might just be fighting for the freedom of their country. Others may be fighting for power.

c) you have just described the perfect recruitment campaign for the terrorist groups. Committing such outrages, and trampling all over cultural and religious sensitivities would drive far more people into extremism than it would deter.

 

 

4) If steps 1-3 fail to eliminate terrorist attacks, begint he following policy:

 

Any deaths of American citizens in Iraq to terrorist actions will result in a random Islamic holy site disappearing under a nuclear fireball. One sacred site per US citizen. Repeat until the terrorists run out of volunteers and/or holy sites.

 

Of course plenty of advance warning will be given to evacuate, so there will be only property damage. But it should still be effective motivation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, I see - the classic US response ... just drop a bomb on it. And thanks for confirming the stereotype that Islam = terrorism.

 

Do you really think there'd be a single nation in the world supporting the US in such tactics? I think even Tony Blair might have problems selling that one to the UK electorate.

 

I'm sure Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & other predominantly Muslim nations would just stand by and watch.... and Saudi Arabia would probably just love to have US nukes dropped on to their territory.

 

And of course there would be absolutely no retaliatory attacks, because people would be so in awe of the mighty US of A. In fact, the whole world would love America.

 

 

If the US (and the UK and other allies) wanted to be serious about ending the conflict in Iraq, the first thing they should do is offer a full and unconditional apology to the world for starting this war in the first place.

 

Then offer to pay reparations to the Iraqi people rather than exploiting this war for profit.

 

Investigate the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, right up to the highest level of command, and put everyone involved in the chain of command leading to the abuses on trial for war crimes.

 

Hand the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay over to civilian jurisdiction, and either charge them with a crime and put them on trial, or release them. Investigate human rights abuses there too, and prosecute perpetrators right up the chain of command.

 

Put all allied troops under the command of the UN - if the UN is even prepared to sort out the mess.

 

And let the people of Iraq decide their future rather than trying to foist a puppet government on them.

 

I don't see Iraq as a nation being sustainable - it was an artificial creation with little regard to the ethnic differences within the different groups. If this is acknowledged now, and the option of splitting Iraq into different states - if this is the wish of the Iraqi people - is considered now there's a chance that a civil war like that during the break-up of Yugoslavia can be avoided.

 

But I'm not hopeful that anything approaching sanity will prevail.

[Peregrine]

And leave the country you've destabilised with a civil war as a farewell present. Nice plan. I'm sure the Iraqis appreciate your thought for their freedom and security.

 

And what's the alternative? A massive US military presence for the forseeable future? I'm sure they're really happy to have us occupying their country....

 

I like the 'honest' qualification though. Does that mean US companies will be disqualified from obtaining rebuilding contracts and so profiting from the mess?

 

Only if you want to give up any chance of successful rebuilding. Like it or not, US companies are needed if you want a productive rebuilding effort. And those companies aren't going to act out of idealism and forget about profits.

 

By honest I meant that we actually rebuild the country in a useful way, not just throw money at it with a few token projects that produce propaganda claims as their only benefit.

a) if people truly are motivated by such religious fanaticism, then it would not take long for a leader exploiting their fanaticism to come up with something to convince them that because of the added insult to their religion they are now true martyrs, or some such thing... Bear in mind that those leaders have already managed to subvert the message of the Koran - do you really think they'd not find a way around that?

 

That's why it worked in the past? I forget where I found the story, but in the past (50-100 years or so, if I remember right), there was a problem with an Islamic-based rebellion. The government did exactly what I posted, and the rebellion instantly disappeared. It might not be 100% effective, but the terrorists can't succeed without a constant flood of willing martyrs.

 

b) not all terrorists are driven by religion. Some might just be fighting for the freedom of their country. Others may be fighting for power.

 

No, but the overwhelming majority of them are. How many people do you think are going to seek power in the mortal world by blowing themselves up? The worst of the terrorists are driven by religious fanatacism. Get rid of them, and the problem becomes a lot less significant.

 

c) you have just described the perfect recruitment campaign for the terrorist groups. Committing such outrages, and trampling all over cultural and religious sensitivities would drive far more people into extremism than it would deter.

 

It's kind of hard to recruit fanatics when those same fanatics are going to be the ones least likely to accept a new interpretation of their religion. Suddenly "die a martyr and earn your place in heaven" becomes "die in sin, and spend eternity in hell," a much less appealing recruitment speech.

Ah, I see - the classic US response ... just drop a bomb on it. And thanks for confirming the stereotype that Islam = terrorism.

 

It isn't. But the present terrorist problem is with Islamic fanatics. Attacking their religious motivations is a perfectly legitimate strategy. Obviously there would be some consequences to the non-terrorist believers. But that's an acceptable price to pay to end the torture and murder of innocent people.

 

And you'll notice that holding holy sites hostage would be the last resort if and only if all else failed. At that point, if it takes a little property damage to end the violence, then that's what it takes.

 

Do you really think there'd be a single nation in the world supporting the US in such tactics? I think even Tony Blair might have problems selling that one to the UK electorate.

 

I already conceded this point when I said that the biggest flaw in the idea was that it would be politically unacceptable. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is more concerned with protesting "American imperialism" than actually getting something done about the evil in the world.

 

I'm sure Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & other predominantly Muslim nations would just stand by and watch.... and Saudi Arabia would probably just love to have US nukes dropped on to their territory.

 

No, I expect they would send a strongly worded letter of protest. Anything else would be suicide.

And of course there would be absolutely no retaliatory attacks, because people would be so in awe of the mighty US of A. In fact, the whole world would love America.

 

The whole world would send strongly worded letters of protest, and whine a bit. Any retaliatory attacks would be suicide. The military situation is just that one-sided.

 

If the US (and the UK and other allies) wanted to be serious about ending the conflict in Iraq, the first thing they should do is offer a full and unconditional apology to the world for starting this war in the first place.

 

You're right, we owe the world an apology for letting our idiot of a president start a war with no plan to finish it.

 

Then offer to pay reparations to the Iraqi people rather than exploiting this war for profit.

 

When hell freezes over. There is absolutely zero chance of this happening, and requesting it is just wasting time.

 

Investigate the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, right up to the highest level of command, and put everyone involved in the chain of commend leading to the abuses on trial for war crimes.

 

No argument here. There was no justification for any of that, and the people responsible deserve the full punishment for their actions.

Hand the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay over to civilian jurisdiction, and either charge them with a crime and put them on trial, or release them. Investigate human rights abuses there too, and prosecute perpetrators right up the chain of command.

 

No argument here. Holding prisoners indefinitely is completely wrong. If they're guilty, convict them in a fair and open trial and execute them. If there isn't enough evidence, there is no justification for keeping them in prison.

 

Put all allied troops under the command of the UN - if the UN is even prepared to sort out the mess.

 

When hell freezes over. The UN is a hopelessly inefficent organization, and putting our troops under their command would be incredibly irresponsible. Any US commander/president who authorized that does not deserve their position.

 

And let the people of Iraq decide their future rather than trying to foist a puppet government on them.

 

The people of Iraq are not capable of deciding that future right now. Getting a fair election on something that important is a hopelessly idealistic dream. However, the "puppet government" should only be allowed to last long enough to finish the rebuilding effort and end the fighting. After that, peaceful and legitimate elections can and should be held.

 

=====================================================

 

This could, in turn, cause those countries to completely ostracise the USA, which would have a MASSIVE negative impact on the US economy, and could quite possibly cause a new Cold War, except this time it will be the US v the rest of the 'West', or perhaps the rest of the entire world.

 

Not going to happen. Any negative impact on the US economy would be matched (at minimum) by negative impacts on the rest of the world. You might get a minority of nations to reject all ties, but most of them are going to be rational enough to see the idea as the economic suicide that it is.

[Dark0ne]

Welcome to "Why America Faces A Terrorist Threat 101".

 

America entered into this war attempting to claim the moral high ground. "We're doing this to protect freedom", "We're doing this for the good of man"..etc. etc...is it not ironic and hypocritical that you intend to fight terrorism with terrorism. I think all morals go out the window then -- I wonder what your Christian majority would say about that?

 

What scares me more is the fact that young Americans such as yourself, Peregrine, seem to be becoming the norm over there. I do hope China hurries up with the industrial revolution and gets into the super power business soon before American's start going Aryan on us. Perhaps they already have.

 

"Whats that, Dark0ne calling me a facist?"

 

Uh huh.

[ThetaOrionis01]

-- I wonder what your Christian majority would say about that?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well.. for them to comment at all would require

 

a) Fox news tellling them about it - unlikely

 

and

 

b) they'd have to be able to distinguish between Islam and terrorism. And as Peregrine has just shown us, that's equally unlikely

 

:grin:

[Dark0ne]

b) they'd have to be able to distinguish between Islam and terrorism. And as Peregrine has just shown us, that's equally unlikely

 

I believe the new Harvard Dictionary has actually changed its meanings for the word Islam.

 

Is-lam (s-läm, z-, släm, z-)

       

        See 'Terrorism'

[Peregrine]

America entered into this war attempting to claim the moral high ground. "We're doing this to protect freedom", "We're doing this for the good of man"..etc. etc...is it not ironic and hypocritical that you intend to fight terrorism with terrorism.

 

You're right, we let our idiot of a president get into a war with no plan for how to finish it. If the war had been done right, it would've been a perfectly legitimate one. But it wasn't, and Bush's lack of planning is painfully obvious as we've got a massive disaster with no sign of an end.

 

And it's not hypocrisy at all. We're not the ones torturing and murdering innocent people for the "crime" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're not the ones who think it's acceptable to kill someone just to get attention for our cause. But we're stuck with a country of fanatics who are doing that.

 

Any "terrorism" I suggested would be directed only at these murderers. If you don't want to be subject to those consequences, don't try to kill people. Nowhere did I suggest shooting those pig-blood-tipped bullets at innocent victims. The only people gettting shot by them would be people in the process of attempting terrorism.

 

The "hold all their holy sites hostage" suggestion would be an extreme last resort, to be used only if all else failed. And even then, it would be only property damage. Maybe you missed this part, but that destruction would only come after plenty of time to evacuate the target.

I wonder what your Christian majority would say about that?

 

You make the mistake of assuming I care even slightly what our christian majority has to say about anything. I don't. If they don't like the price of fixing the mess we're in, too bad for them. Let them go whine to their god about how unfair it is.

What scares me more is the fact that young Americans such as yourself, Peregrine, seem to be becoming the norm over there.

 

If people like me were the norm over here, we wouldn't be in this war right now. Whatever you might think about America over there in England, people like me are a tiny minority.

 

I do hope China hurries up with the industrial revolution and gets into the super power business soon before American's start going Aryan on us. Perhaps they already have.

 

Yes, lets hope an opressive communist govenment gets power. Since we all know that's much better than an American one that wants the poor innocent terrorists dead.

 

And who said anything about "going Aryan." Name one place I've claimed any kind of racial superiority. Do you even know what "Aryan" means, or do you just like being anti-American because it's popular?

 

Whats that, Dark0ne calling me a facist?"

 

Now this I'd love to see. Go ahead, prove I'm a facist. Lets watch your pathetic accusation fail when confronted with reality. Do you even know what a facist is, or do you just call me one because it's popular over there to say it?

[Peregrine]

Dark0ne and Theta's Islam = Terroism statements

 

"And thanks for confirming the stereotype that Islam = terrorism."

 

 

It isn't. But the present terrorist problem is with Islamic fanatics.

 

Unlike a lot of the idiots here, I don't claim that Islam and terrorism are the same thing. It is possible to have those beliefs without being a terrorist, and I'm sure the majority do. But you'd have to be absolutely blind to the present situation to miss the fact that most of the terrorist are Islamic fanatics, murdering and destroying because of some twisted form of that religion.

 

I never said the entire religion and its countless innocent believers shoud be attacked. Just that attacking the religious motivations of the terrorists is a perfectly valid strategy. And that if those religious fanatics are removed, terrorism becomes much less of a threat.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Whatever you might think about America over there in England, people like me are a tiny minority.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankfully.

[Peregrine]

Whatever you might think about America over there in England, people like me are a tiny minority.

 

Thankfully.

 

Nice dodge of the entire point of the post. We'll just ignore the fact that if people like me were the majority, the entire war you're objecting to never would have happened.

[ThetaOrionis01]

And you've missed the point I was making... namely that your suggestions are so insane it's just as well you are in a minority.

 

But if it's a debate you want...

 

 

And it's not hypocrisy at all. We're not the ones torturing and murdering innocent people for the "crime" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're not the ones who think it's acceptable to kill someone just to get attention for our cause. But we're stuck with a country of fanatics who are doing that.

 

Guantanamo Bay.

 

Have any of the inmates been convicted of being terrorists? No? If they have not been convicted they are innocent until proven guilty.

 

And of course the civilian casualties in Iraq are not murder victims... they're 'collateral damage'.

 

 

And you've conveniently ignored the double standards of US foreign policy. Why are the people of Saudi Arabia not being liberated, for one? Ah but of course.. the Saudi government are friends of the US... Why are human rights in Palestine not addressed? Oh, who cares, they're all a bunch of suicide bombers anyway.... <rolleyes>

 

I'm sure the people of Chile under the Pinochet regime really appreciated the American idea of freedom and democracy, too.

 

 

Which country is that you're referring to? The country which posed no threat to the US? Which had no long range weapons capability that would have enabled it to attack the US? Which had no weapons of mass destruction? Which had no links to Al Qaeda? The country the US and allies invaded on a pretext?

 

Sure... you tell me that if another nation invaded your country, bombed your home, killed your relatives, etc you'd strew flowers in the path of their army. [Dark0ne, I'd REALLY like a more sarcastic rolleye smilie...]

 

Any "terrorism" I suggested would be directed only at these murderers. If you don't want to be subject to those consequences, don't try to kill people. Nowhere did I suggest shooting those pig-blood-tipped bullets at innocent victims. The only people gettting shot by them would be people in the process of attempting terrorism.

 

And of course you'd be able to identify the suicide bombers and terrorists on sight. Well, I suppose that's easy, isn't it - it's those guys with the towels on their heads. <sarcastic rolleye smilie>. Those guys which have 'terrorist' listed as their profession, wear Al Qaeda sweatshirts and badges saying 'Osama for president'. Yeah - they're so easy to spot.

 

 

The "hold all their holy sites hostage" suggestion would be an extreme last resort, to be used only if all else failed. And even then, it would be only property damage. Maybe you missed this part, but that destruction would only come after plenty of time to evacuate the target.

 

Oh right - terrorist acts are ok then if warning is given in advance. <shake-head-in-consternation smilie>

 

 

Thank you once again for confirming the perception growing ever more widespread abroad that Americans are a bunch of ignorant gung-ho cowboys who think they can solve all problems by riding in, guns blazing.....

 

Yeehaa