 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
More angry people with nothing left to lose = more terrorists
- Stop making people angry
- Stop killing innocents
- Stop creating widows, widowmen and orphans, full of hate and revenge
Terrorism is a police matter. It can't be solved by tanks and airstrikes. Possibly by special forces and SWAT teams. Use the same carefulness to minimise colateral damage in counter-terrorist operations abroad, as you would do when hunting domestic terrorists.
Change the SOP for Iraq troops to fit the strategic goal "Iraqi Freedom" rather than "optimizing survival rate for your own soldiers". Be prepared to take higher risks in order to save the people you are there to protect, the Iraqis. In the short run, you might lose more soldiers, but in the long run you will save American lifes, as less Iraqis will go over the bitterness treshold where they decide to join the resistance. Learn from the Brits.
One example: Your soldiers quite often kill people who stopped by the road to let military convoys pass, just because it could be an ambush. If they would take the risk to hold your fire until there actually is an ambush, less innocents would die, and less bitter orphans would become terrorist. |
Typical leftist crap. The United States is the cause of the problem.
And these people think they are smart and everyone who disagrees with their Neanderthalic world view is an utter moron!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
You can't force democracy, minority laws, free press and hate education, it must be desired and developed. More importantly, democracy in a fundamentalist country will lead to hate speech, hate education and a lack of a free press. What do you do then? Let them have an Islamic Fundamentalist government that's elected, or force a non-Fundy government on them?
Yes you can.
Turkey.
Iraq.
Afghanistan. |
 @ Ned
And all three countries allow anti-US hate speech. Or at least they don't actively suppress it. 
Afghanistan and Iraq is HARDLY a democracy, btw. Afghanistan is more of warlord anomy, and Iraq more of insurgency anomy. Furthermore, where are the elections?
Drogue was mentioning how one can accomplish all four objectives at the same time....NOT just one of them...ie. both democracy and non hate speech.
quote:
Typical leftist crap. The United States is the cause of the problem.
And these people think they are smart and everyone who disagrees with their Neanderthalic world view is an utter moron! |
Translation: Ned can't is speechless to the argument, at least constructively, so he tries assertions instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
I think Turks wore armour.
Edit: lonestar's already said that
And Byzantines were both Eastern AND WESTERN Romans.
476 is not the fall of western empire, but its nominal unification with the eastern one
Last edited by Heresson on 01-10-2004 at 20:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Anyway, whats with the intolerance of US hate speech?
Don't we regularly incite hate against our politicians too? Don't we call Bush a nutcase? Why can't Muslims call the US infidels then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
You cannot seriously consider yourself to be a Republican if you cannot bring yourself to vote for Bush |
Thats quite an irrational statement to make. One may agree with with the party byline, but not necessarily the candidate they chose - ie. exceptions, exceptions.
quote:
I would have voted for Bush in 2000, but not this time. Now he has proven how incompetent he is. |
Ditto - except I could only support him instead in 2000, not vote.  Now, not much.
quote:
Since you seem to fundamentally agree with Bush, why do you call him a nutcase? |
I don't call him a nutcase, but you notice a lot of people do. I don't agree with Bush on many points. I don't even think I agree with Bush in the approach to solving the problem of Iraq. He hasn't even decided to say, instead of sending TROOPS, train and send a crack POLICE FORCE instead. In addition to training Iraqis...since you are sending personnel from the US as well, why not policemen and women?
Instead of inciting Muslim anger, appeal to them instead. Instead of ranting on about how "we have a plan"...or being so irrationally stubborn....
I don't support Bush - neither Kerry. I extend support to Nader as a last resort. At least flawed influence by plutocratic corporations are low.
quote:
Natal, your basic point that you cannot force and end to hate speech in a true democracy is a valid one. The best antidote to such hate speech is freedom of speech where more rational views can be discussed. |
Yay! You finally understood it!  
Last edited by Natalinasmpf on 01-10-2004 at 20:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
Natal, "making them angry" is caused in large measure by the incitement of a hostile Arab press and hostile religious elite. US support of freedom and democracy is not fundamentally hostile to Islam, albeit it is hostile to religious fundamentalistic political control -- but that is the primary thing that has to be fixed before we win the war on terror.
|
It is rather like a catch-22 isn't it?
The source may be from the anti-US press: but, what is the RESPONSE? A response that causes anger, that further escalates the violence, or a response that pacifies?
"Return your enemy's evil with good, for by doing so you are collecting lumps of coals on his head, and making him a footstool for your feet".
In essence, if a few bees stings you while attempting to gain some honey from the hive, do you swat at them, angering the entire hive, or do you, say, use smoke instead? And use cream to relieve the poison and pain?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
Yes, we should have all appealed to Hitler instead of fighting him...
|
You don't appeal to Hitler. You appeal to the GERMAN PEOPLE.
You show them how irrational Hitler is. You boost their confidence in internationalism. You show them how irrational nationalism is. You make it conducive for Germany to establish good ties with other nations, such that it will be a pity if Germany broke them. You reduce the reasons for the German people to support him?
Well, if we could turn back the hands of time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
He backed off in Falluja earlier at the request if the Iraqi governing council. As a result of these actions, the US has the support of a majority of the Iraqi political establishment.
|
Political establishment is a political establishment. What about the people?
quote:
Obviously, Bush is being as "sensitive" as the situation permits in Iraq by letting the Ayatolloh Sistani essentially call the shots in the Shi'ite portion of Iraq. |
Thats not the approach I meant...alas....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
How should America go about winning the war on terror?
Become what you are pretending to be. Build that shining city on the hill. If you build it, they will come...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Taliban yes, Saddam no. . |
I believe as well that Kerry would have done this post-911.
If Kerry has been president all along, Saddam would likely still lead Iraq and would still be under sanctions. Most likely the Iraqi situation would be pretty much as it had been for years-- Saddam as an annoyance and possible threat but having no links to AQ and the US having much greater military capability when Iran or Korea act up
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2004 19:54
|