NationStates Jolt Archive

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

America should stay out of the situation. Hell, even if the Iraqis get close to huting themselves down to extinction, america should stay out.

Why the fuck would we ruin our already tarnished image? We'd be better off leaving and letting the Iraqis fight it out for control of the country.

Idiotic.

Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty.

Well the first job is to remove it from your ass. After that, I'd try to refrain from handing them the shitty end, as they've got far too much of that already. In fact, it might be time to take the stick and go.

The most effective way is to install another Saddam Hussein and give him enough guns and cash to rebuild the nice balance against Iran and give him the carte blanche to resume genociding anyone who gets out of line.

But where would this put the US?

MTAE! I figured you was banned!

The most effective way is to install another Saddam Hussein and give him enough guns and cash to rebuild the nice balance against Iran and give him the carte blanche to resume genociding anyone who gets out of line.

But where would this put the US?

Right back where we were 20 years ago, minus some WMDs?

America should stay out of the situation. Hell, even if the Iraqis get close to huting themselves down to extinction, america should stay out.

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

Prevent genocide by carrying it out! You, sir, are a genius on the level of George W. Bush, or perhaps even Alberto Gonzales.

The most effective way is to install another Saddam Hussein and give him enough guns and cash to rebuild the nice balance against Iran and give him the carte blanche to resume genociding anyone who gets out of line.

But where would this put the US?

Perhaps, but that would violate democratic principles. Our goal is not to eradicate democracy in Iraq, but rather to preserve it.

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

The African genocides don't go unnoticed, it's just that nobody really cares. As for saving lives, killing ten civilians for every civilian who dies in a terrorist attack won't save any lives. It just makes us the executioners. I'd rather leave them to fight it out than waste further money, US lives, and respect for our country.

Perhaps, but that would violate democratic principles. Our goal is not to eradicate democracy in Iraq, but rather to preserve it.

Some nations aren't ready for democracy. You don't hand a five year old the keys to the family car.

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

Then we should apologize to the world and beg them for help like a runt puppy at the dinner table begging for scraps.

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

Dude, we are allowing genocide to happen in Iraq. Chechnya had a prewar population of 1.3 million, and now they are letting tourists into a Chechnya with a population of 300,000 light sleepers. What about Liberia, Sierra Leone, or even Somalia right now? The DoD probably thinks it would be in our advantage if the Ethiopians started cutting up the Islamic Courts supporters.

In short, the US has stood to profit from many massacres, or at least profit from pretending they weren't there. We currently don't seem to be doing about Moqtada al-Sadr's butchering of the Sunnis, and we certainly had no problem with Iraq gassing the Kurds when they felt like supporting Iran.

Moral: The US has no ethical qualm about genocides. They only serve as rationale for war when it is politically convenient.

Then we should apologize to the world and beg them for help like a runt puppy at the dinner table begging for scraps.

The world could care less about Iraq; countries are withdrawing troops, not sending more in. Selfish interests are so deeply entrenched in many nations' psyches that they refuse to mitigate a devastating humanitarian crisis because of the cost and their disturbingly self-concerned populaces.

Committing war crimes is hardly a sure way to end the violence in Iraq. It would more likely only enrage the insurgents further and gain more recruits. These people aren't afraid to die, killing random people in response to attacks by extremists will in no way have effect on the will of the insurgents.

Besides, we are supposively the one who is bringing freedom and safety to people, not more terror.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

This isn't witty or even interesting. We know you're taking a piss. You know you're taking a piss.

No one "prevents genocide" by committing genocide. The entire argument isn't even close enough to believable to allow us suspension of disbelief. Could you correct that please?

You, sir, are a genius on the level of George W. Bush, or perhaps even Alberto Gonzales.

Thanks, I guess, although I don't find Gonzales to be a "genius."

The world could care less about Iraq; countries are withdrawing troops, not sending more in. Selfish interests are so deeply entrenched in many nations' psyches that they refuse to mitigate a devastating humanitarian crisis because of the cost and their disturbingly self-concerned populaces.

Iraq isn't even a real genocide. You claim to care so much about genocide, what have you done about Sudan? I'll bet you've done nothing. I at least wrote my congressman and senator, which is literally the least I could do, but it's something.

Perhaps, but that would violate democratic principles. Our goal is not to eradicate democracy in Iraq, but rather to preserve it.

From what I understand, you propose reprisal attacks. Those are what Hussein did to keep his populace in line.

If there is anything to be learned from machiavelli that can be applied today, its that genocide and democracy don't go together.

Moral: The US has no ethical qualm about genocides. They only serve as rationale for war when it is politically convenient.

The US government isn't a reasoning entity, only the people who run it are. I agree that Clinton was a heartless creep who was unwilling to intervene in Rwanda to save the lives of many. I agree that Truman was too artless to nuke the USSR when we had the chance. However, unlike them, Bush is firmly devoted to the cause of freedom and democracy throughout the world and is willing to depose horrible leaders such as Saddam.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.
Considering the amount of danger this would put US soldiers in, by Myrmi's 'logic', this makes you a traitor. Interesting fact.

We cannot go wielding power and blowing the living daylights out of anyone in the name of democracy. Democracy in its inherent form is the right to choose. You cannot kill someone, therefore, for choosing not to embrace the American version of democracy. Which lets face it, is pretty shaky at best.
I am Scottish, living in Scotland, as a UK citizen i feel remorse and guilt and embarassment at how my country has acted as a blind follower of some of the most reprehensibile foreign policy in living memory.
There are no WMD's in Iraq, there never were any WMD's in Iraq. All the decent weapons the Ba'ath party had were supplied by by the UK and the US to bash Iran with. That was 20 years ago and more.
What we should do now is keep offering the Iraqis what they want and work hard to repair the country of theirs that we destroyed for illegal, immoral and downright disgraceful reasons. Support our troops in Iraq and demand from our governments that the job is done as properly and as quickly as possible.
That the US and the UK can be worried about their image is a total disgrace since they are the perpetrators of all violence that is currently happening in Iraq and that people are dying at a greater rate under our "control" than ever did under Ba'ath rule.
The most impressive hypocrasy in my opinion is the use of the term "insurgents" the term means someone who is coming into an area from outside. Thats a bit rich coming from Coalition forces when the "insurgents" are natives to the region and we are the real "insurgents."
I think it is about time we got over our ignorant insular tabloid version of "old glory" patriotism and started to realise that not only are our governments perpetrating the killing of innocent (both Coalition and Iraqi) citizens but are lying to us, using us and taking us for a ride whilst they do it.
Us in Scotland are lucky enough to have a chance on may the 3rd to vote with our feet and get rid of the corrupt lying deceitful government who have led us into this mess. I think those who don't have that chance should find a way to lobby their governments and ensure that this is cleaned up morally and justly. We started this, we shall ensure that our mistakes do not cost the lives of those we are meant to be helping.

It would more likely only enrage the insurgents further and gain more recruits.

Recruits are lured by promises of sectarian dominance and safety; if they know that joining will inflict the opposite upon those in their religious sect, they will be unwilling to submit to such a bigoted doctrine.

Besides, we are supposively the one who is bringing freedom and safety to people, not more terror.

Obviously killing is "wrong," but it is sometimes necessary. I, like all people, have qualms about massacring innocents; however, it must be sparingly employed at the right moments. For example, declaring war on Nazi Germany cost millions of lives, but saved countless more. Similar logic can be applied here.

Thanks, I guess, although I don't find Gonzales to be a "genius."

See... honestly, how can we pretend you're serious after you say things like this?

Bush is firmly devoted to the cause of freedom and democracy throughout the world and is willing to depose horrible leaders such as Saddam.

Oh dear. If Bush is so committed to freedom and democracy, then why are we friends with Pervez Musharraf? Why is Bush so cushy with the house of Saud? Why did Bush try to fire Patrick Fitzgerald when he was in the middle of investigations? Why did he pass the PATRIOT act, that allows the government to spy on its citizens and imposes severe penalties on anyone who talks about it?

You can't just say "let's have democracy here but not here." Thats not how it works. You either be a tyrant and do what you want and acknowledge that, or be totally democratic and accept the responsibilities of that.

I would, in fact, say that to date, Bush poses the greatest threat to the ideals of the American Experiment.

See... honestly, how can we pretend you're serious after you say things like this?

I realize that his comment was ironic; I posted a sarcastic reply in return. Do you find something wrong with that? Or is it just too complicated for you to comprehend? Perhaps it's just not "witty" enough for your elite standards. Either way, if you persist in your obdurate path of spamming, I shall ignore you.

Oh dear. If Bush is so committed to freedom and democracy, then why are we friends with Pervez Musharraf? Why is Bush so cushy with the house of Saud? Why did Bush try to fire Patrick Fitzgerald when he was in the middle of investigations? Why did he pass the PATRIOT act, that allows the government to spy on its citizens and imposes severe penalties on anyone who talks about it?

You can't just say "let's have democracy here but not here." Thats not how it works. You either be a tyrant and do what you want and acknowledge that, or be totally democratic and accept the responsibilities of that.

I would, in fact, say that to date, Bush poses the greatest threat to the ideals of the American Experiment.

Agreed. Of course, it's not as if the OP is serious.

Bush is pretty clearly not interested in the ideals of the US. He has violated most of the bill of rights and continues to do so and has simply fired everyone who disagrees with him or who, in being fired, keeps him from taking the blame for his corruption.

Bush is firmly devoted to the cause of freedom and democracy throughout the world and is willing to depose horrible leaders such as Saddam.

*gapes*

Wow. Just... wow. You know, if Bush wants to depose "terrible" leaders and spread freedom and democracy I would love it if he would do something about Darfur. That would be just wonderful for the cause.

Oh dear. If Bush is so committed to freedom and democracy, then why are we friends with Pervez Musharraf? Why is Bush so cushy with the house of Saud? Why did Bush try to fire Patrick Fitzgerald when he was in the middle of investigations? Why did he pass the PATRIOT act, that allows the government to spy on its citizens and imposes severe penalties on anyone who talks about it?

You can't just say "let's have democracy here but not here." Thats not how it works. You either be a tyrant and do what you want and acknowledge that, or be totally democratic and accept the responsibilities of that.

I would, in fact, say that to date, Bush poses the greatest threat to the ideals of the American Experiment.

Bush isn't trying to exterminate democracy in the U.S. He's merely outsourcing it to third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTdubs, had Truman nuked the USSR, the fallout would have probably made us all sterile. People don't seem to appreciate how far the Sr-90 travels in the atmosphere.

The US government isn't a reasoning entity, only the people who run it are. I agree that Clinton was a heartless creep who was unwilling to intervene in Rwanda to save the lives of many. I agree that Truman was too artless to nuke the USSR when we had the chance. However, unlike them, Bush is firmly devoted to the cause of freedom and democracy throughout the world and is willing to depose horrible leaders such as Saddam.
*Coughcough*Guantanamo Bay*Coughcough*
*Coughcough*NSA wiretaps*Coughcough*
*Coughcough*CIA Torture flights*Coughcough*
*Coughcough*Patriot Act*Coughcough*
*Coughcough*Silencing scientists*Coughcough*

Bush isn't trying to exterminate democracy in the U.S. He's merely outsourcing it to third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Silly me. Can I outsource the duty of paying taxes and funding this idiotic military-industry complex?

Why are we friends with Pervez Musharraf?

There are several reasons for our alliance; I never claimed that Bush was not pragmatic in his vision. Those who are overly idealistic and want everything will receive nothing; Bush settles for less, but at least gets something.


Pakistan is pseudo-democratic nation which has a certain degree of liberty and an acceptable standard of human rights and democracy. Although not perfect, it is not one of the worst offenders.
Pakistan is a powerful and populous nation which wields much power in the region; with it as our enemy or apathetic towards us, we could not make much progress in its immediate vicinity and it would imperil diplomacy.
Deposing the brutal Taliban demands support from Pakistan; weeding out a Islamo-fascist, terrorist-supporting, disgusting regime is preferable to railing against Pakistan, which is a functional democracy.


Why is Bush so cushy with the house of Saud?

Again, for many of the same reasons. It is not a shining example of democracy at its best, but its reasonably affluent people are not continuously persecuted by the state and it is a regional heavyweight which allows us to make many inroads in the Middle East. We cannot just ride in, guns blazing, like in cowboy movies and expect to win; we have to choose our battles carefully. Saudi Arabia is much too potent a foe for now; first, we must democratize surrounding countries before moving on to the "big fish."

You can't just say "let's have democracy here but not here."

Sure you can; rational people who want to spread democracy throughout the world will realize that not all tyrannous regimes can be fought simultaneously. It is necessary to isolate them and conquer them, one by one, and ally ourselves with the least severe offenders to accomplish this goal if necessary. As I previously stated, if you want everything, you may get nothing.

*gapes*

Wow. Just... wow.

An old Meatloaf song comes to mind here "you took the words right out of my mouth"

You know, if Bush wants to depose "terrible" leaders and spread freedom and democracy I would love it if he would do something about Darfur. That would be just wonderful for the cause.

Well, you know, we currently have our hands full with Iraq. But if France decided it wanted to be a positive force in the world, it could intervene in the humanitarian crisis in the region. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Cannot help but notice that the OP preciates his argument upon two axioms;

Firstly, that the US has a right to involve, and to have involved itself, in a military occupation of Iraq.

Secondly, that the incipient civil war in Iraq merits the interest of the USA. In a physical sense, the US is reliant upon Iraq for nothing, whilst, if the OP supposes to suggest that the international credibility of the USA will be tarnished by further devolution of Iraqi society, he appears to have missed the consistent criticism of the USA for the past four years.

In any case, the tactics propounded, which strike one as markedly similar to those employed in Vietnam, are fatally flawed by the precedent set by Vietnam itself.

Sure you can; rational people who want to spread democracy throughout the world will realize that not all tyrannous regimes can be fought simultaneously. It is necessary to isolate them and conquer them, one by one, and ally ourselves with the least severe offenders to accomplish this goal if necessary. As I previously stated, if you want everything, you may get nothing.

You failed to address the reduction of freedoms in America. We cannot call ourselves champions of democracy unless we excercise it here.

You failed to address the reduction of freedoms in America. We cannot call ourselves champions of democracy unless we excercise it here.

I failed to acknowledge it because it was pure exaggeration without basis in reality. Not one thing you cited has undermined democracy in the US; hell, it hasn't even undermined basic freedoms in this country (with, of course, the exception of several hundred terrorists).

Not one thing you cited has undermined democracy in the US;

Do you really need to mention the undermining of democracy in the US? It is apparent for all to see. Governments winning seats through court cases, the cousin of one of the candidates getting the casting vote so to speak. Thats some example to be setting for the rest of the world to follow.

I failed to acknowledge it because it was pure exaggeration without basis in reality. Not one thing you cited has undermined democracy in the US; hell, it hasn't even undermined basic freedoms in this country (with, of course, the exception of several hundred terrorists).

It undermined my friends basic freedom to visit family in Pakistan. She went to Pakistan, a close, cushy ally of ours, according to you, and could not return because she was put on a no-fly list. Mind you, she was born in the US, as were her parents.

It undermined my friends basic freedom to visit family in Pakistan...she went to Pakistan.

Heh, you contradicted yourself not one sentence later. Anyway, your friend (assuming what you said is true) was not allowed to fly to the US after engaging in suspicious activity in Pakistan. Not everybody has the right to just hop on a plane to the US.

Heh, you contradicted yourself not one sentence later. Anyway, your friend (assuming what you said is true) was not allowed to fly to the US after engaging in suspicious activity in Pakistan. Not everybody has the right to just hop on a plane to the US.

How did I contradict myself? And who is the judge of what suspicious behavior is?

How did I contradict myself? And who is the judge of what suspicious behavior is?

You claimed that her freedom to travel to Pakistan was undermined; however, you lated claimed that she did in fact go to Pakistan. And immigration officials can decide whether someone should be allowed to enter the US.

Heh, you contradicted yourself not one sentence later. Anyway, your friend (assuming what you said is true) was not allowed to fly to the US after engaging in suspicious activity in Pakistan. Not everybody has the right to just hop on a plane to the US.

Quick point, given that you seem to have overlooked my other post. Would you care to give a definition of "engaging in suspicious behaviour" that is not sufficiently ambiguous so as to allow the likes of you to apply it to anybody whom you deem suitable.

Would you care to give a definition of "engaging in suspicious behaviour" that is not sufficiently ambiguous so as to allow the likes of you to apply it to anybody whom you deem suitable.

No, I wouldn't care to do so. If you leave the US, you run the risk of not being allowed to return. That risk is compounded if you visit a country which is known for breeding terrorists, if you engage in suspicious behavior, if you wear Islamic attire, etc. Whether you are allowed to return should be left up to the discretion of immigration officials.

Quick point, given that you seem to have overlooked my other post. Would you care to give a definition of "engaging in suspicious behaviour" that is not sufficiently ambiguous so as to allow the likes of you to apply it to anybody whom you deem suitable.

Well it would appear that going to any country not as forward thinking and worldy wise as the USA automatically makes you suspicious. How could you possibly think otherwise? ;)

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy.

Any chance of a historical example of such swift and brutal reprisals actually solving anything?

Any chance of a historical example of such swift and brutal reprisals actually solving anything?

Sure, Germany's policies during WWII. Although there were resistance organizations, they never wielded as much power as the Iraqi insurgents, the insurgents in Vietnam, etc. The French resistance: heh, what an oxymoron.

No, I wouldn't care to do so. If you leave the US, you run the risk of not being allowed to return. That risk is compounded if you visit a country which is known for breeding terrorists, if you engage in suspicious behavior, if you wear Islamic attire, etc. Whether you are allowed to return should be left up to the discretion of immigration officials.

That's ridiculous. What you contend defies the very principles of citizenship and liberty.

Equally, surely it is little more than a tacit endorsement of ignorance, given that you seek to emphasise the dangers of travelling to "foreign parts" as opposed to staying within the confines of the USA, and happily munching upon Mom's apple pie whilst painting the fence.

Sure, Germany's policies during WWII. Although there were resistance organizations, they never wielded as much power as the Iraqi insurgents, the insurgents in Vietnam, etc. The French resistance: heh, what an oxymoron.

Are you claiming that German reprisals stopped Soviet, Dutch, Polish and French partisans?

That's ridiculous. What you contend defies the very principles of citizenship and liberty.

Sadly in today's world, Freedom and Liberty are two mutually exclusive partners.
Freedom is enforced with a battering ram because its a nice buzzword whilst all the while, liberty is sacrificed as the cost of Freedom TM

Well, you know, we currently have our hands full with Iraq. But if France decided it wanted to be a positive force in the world, it could intervene in the humanitarian crisis in the region. I'm not holding my breath, though.

With all the talk of invading Iran it would seem that we have the ability to increase our responsibilities. And Darfur would certainly be a much better cause than attacking Iran. If Bush really loves to spread freedom like you say he would deal with what is happening there. But of course he doesn't give a damn.

Any chance of a historical example of such swift and brutal reprisals actually solving anything?

Much as I hate to do this, I'll do it for him. Genghis Khan certainly acheived much of his political goals through the use of sudden, brutal examples (see Persia, Beijing etc).

However, the paradigm in which such behaviour was politically advisable is no longer in existence. In a world wherin the media can transmit any transgression or depravity to all corners of the world immediately, and in a post-colonial world wherein "human rights" are paramount, the brutality the OP espouses is no longer viable.

Any chance of a historical example of such swift and brutal reprisals actually solving anything?

I understand that when we took the Philippines from Spain, the populace was quite irked that we remained in control of the islands. A guerrilla war was fought in which the American forces finally prevailed by committing massive war crimes against the populace. It seemed to be effective as the fighting ended once this became standard. Hardly makes it right though, if we did something similar in Iraq, that would totally destroy whatever positive image we still maintain with the world.

The world could care less about Iraq; countries are withdrawing troops, not sending more in. Selfish interests are so deeply entrenched in many nations' psyches that they refuse to mitigate a devastating humanitarian crisis because of the cost and their disturbingly self-concerned populaces.

Ugh...

And immigration officials can decide whether someone should be allowed to enter the US.

Even though the person in question is a US citizen? Are you proposing the government has/should have the right to selectively not allow its citizens from returning to their homes?

Sure, Germany's policies during WWII.

You know...there's a problem with this example, but I will leave it to others to point out.

Ah, what wonderful drivel. Forcing democracy by draconian measures, brutal savagery and collective punishment / war crimes :p Hihihi

MTAE! I figured you was banned!
They always come back. He's no different :)
The French resistance: heh, what an oxymoron.
Thus, you display your ignorance. Well done.

*Golf claps*

No, I wouldn't care to do so. If you leave the US, you run the risk of not being allowed to return. That risk is compounded if you visit a country which is known for breeding terrorists, if you engage in suspicious behavior, if you wear Islamic attire, etc. Whether you are allowed to return should be left up to the discretion of immigration officials.

um. No.

A american citizen returning to his country is not, by definition, immigrating anywhere. Therefore it is quite out of the jurisdiction of immigration officials.

Diatribe.

Very well, as long as that same system is applied to you in case a member of your family ever kills someone.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance

"Swift and brutal reprisals" are a major reason for the sectarian slaughter in the first place.

Problem: Chaos in Iraq. Iraqis are getting killed en masse by sectarian militias.

Solution: Kill ten times as many Iraqis as the sectarian militias do.

No, it doesn't quite work.

You claimed that her freedom to travel to Pakistan was undermined; however, you lated claimed that she did in fact go to Pakistan. And immigration officials can decide whether someone should be allowed to enter the US.

You do realize that visiting family is typically a round-trip...yes?

And that, since it's a round-trip, preventing her return is limiting her freedom of travel to Pakistan...yes?

Glad we cleared that up.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.


You've outdone yourself, MTAE. "If you kill each other, we'll kill ten times as many"? Classic. You should have your own sitcom.

You know...there's a problem with this example, but I will leave it to others to point out.

Is it that....ammm.....is it it...errrr.....that Germany's policies during WW2 led to it's defeat?

...that Germany's policies led to mass extermination of millions

..that Germany's policies split it into 2 for over 50 years

Or is it something else :)

There are no WMD's in Iraq, there never were any WMD's in Iraq. All the decent weapons the Ba'ath party had were supplied by by the UK and the US to bash Iran with. That was 20 years ago and more.


Yeah those nasty american supplied AK-47's T-55 and T-72 tanks, Mig21 and mirage aircraft plus all those silkworm missiles, scuds and ammunition the US gave Saddam



The most impressive hypocrasy in my opinion is the use of the term "insurgents" the term means someone who is coming into an area from outside. Thats a bit rich coming from Coalition forces when the "insurgents" are natives to the region and we are the real "insurgents."


If the 'insurgents' were attacking our troops and Iraqis who co-operate with them, I could understand it, however as they proved this week , they killed 140 fellow iraqis for the heinious crime of buying food in a market place.
When you are up against a mindset like that do you
A. Run away and leave them to it.
B. Try and stop it.

I think those who don't have that chance should find a way to lobby their governments and ensure that this is cleaned up morally and justly. We started this, we shall ensure that our mistakes do not cost the lives of those we are meant to be helping.


So on the one hand you say we should leave them to their mass slaughter, on the other you say you want us to help stop the mass slaughter?

The US government isn't a reasoning entity, only the people who run it are. I agree that Clinton was a heartless creep who was unwilling to intervene in Rwanda to save the lives of many. I agree that Truman was too artless to nuke the USSR when we had the chance. However, unlike them, Bush is firmly devoted to the cause of freedom and democracy throughout the world and is willing to depose horrible leaders such as Saddam.

Guantanamo Bay?...

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy.

Actually no, you are totally wrong on that historical basis.

The level of reprisals needed to employee the Mongol Method are far beyond what the US can emp[loyee today. (The modern application of the Mongol Method would basically be to nuke Iraq back to the Stone Age. That is not going to foreseeably happen.)

As for reasonable methodsa of dealing for this sort of situation, I'll simply leave you with the name James T. Quinlivan and suggest you look into his writtings on the subject for thye US Army War College and the RAND Corporation. (I am tired of posting the links. You people know what google is...)

We start colonizing Iraq. We send shiploads of Freedom & Liberty loving people there. Much like we did to open the West. We would likely have to pay people to relocate there. Iraq would become an American Colony. Since at this point we pretty much bought and paid for this place both with dollars and blood.

We then have eyes and ears that will be there every day to help us out. Of course we would start taxing this colony immediately. We could start building firehouses, police stations, roads crews, and water works. We start building schools to educate them free of course.

Encouraging businesses to relocate there with some sweetheart deals of epic proportion. Start getting these insurgents real paying jobs.

Beats the heck out of bombing them back to the Stone Age?

What does a gopher/prairie dog/ground squirrel bounty go for these days? The insurgent bounty need to be slightly higher.

Even though the person in question is a US citizen? Are you proposing the government has/should have the right to selectively not allow its citizens from returning to their homes?

We do not know the full circumstances of this example. The government doesn't stop everyone from coming into the country. They wouldn't stop this person if they had no reason to do so.

Anyone who believes the Iraqi insurgencts crap about how they are fighting for their country and want to end american occupation are idiots. The Iraqi insurgency is smart enough to know if not 1 suicide attack was carried out against our forces we would have left long ago.

The vast majority of coalition forces would be withdrawn and we would just have a few training personnel.

The iraqi insurgency is operating not just against our soldiers, but against the democraticlly elected Iraqi government which has not asked us to leave. They are killing Iraqis who dare to vote, join the police force, join the army or basiclly show any kind of support for the democraticlly elected Iraqi government

That is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. Killing civilians (at lest I assume FAG means killing civilians) won't do anything but increase al-queda's recruitment numbers.

So the core thrust of the trolling post was...

1. Violence and killing in Iraq is bad.
2. Violence and killing stops violence and killing.
3. Thus, the solution to violence and killing in Iraq is violence and killing in Iraq.

Excellent trollwork. Also gets that "advocate genocide" aspect in too, a must for any serious NSG troll.

Anyone who believes the Iraqi insurgencts crap about how they are fighting for their country and want to end american occupation are idiots. The Iraqi insurgency is smart enough to know if not 1 suicide attack was carried out against our forces we would have left long ago.

The vast majority of coalition forces would be withdrawn and we would just have a few training personnel.

The iraqi insurgency is operating not just against our soldiers, but against the democraticlly elected Iraqi government which has not asked us to leave. They are killing Iraqis who dare to vote, join the police force, join the army or basiclly show any kind of support for the democraticlly elected Iraqi government
So, you're saying these people don't want 'coalition' forces to leave Iraq? If they don't, then why do they leave roadside bombs to kill UK/USA soldiers? The insurgents want, along with a majority of Iraqis, foreign troops to leave just as much as they don't want the government they prop up, democratic or not. (Why do you think that government still wants us there?) However, there isn't a single be all and end all reason why insurgents do what they do, with various different sectarian and political objectives, but you can bet your bottom dollar they don't want coalition forces there,

MTAE! I figured you was banned!

ROFLMAO!

...
1. Violence and killing in Iraq is bad.
2. Violence and killing stops violence and killing.
3. Thus, the solution to violence and killing in Iraq is violence and killing in Iraq.
...Yeah, but you know, then the good guys would be killing the bad guys, for a change... :rolleyes:

The only effective way to end an insurgency is to be willing to use brutal methods. Decimating the populace actually works against you because it just works as a wonderful recruiting tool.

What most people seem to have trouble getting is that the insurgents (most especially the Shia) do not care about casualties. Inflicting greater casualties on a group who are indifferent to them only hurts your own standing in the community and bolsters the resistance.

Ending an insurgency can only be done in one of two ways - gain the active support of the majority of the population (fat chance) or hunt down anyone involved in the resistance. You nab someone and interrogate them; this usually involves torture. You make them give up the names of other people who support the insurgency. You then haul those people in and make them give up others. Additionally you offer really good incentives for turning people in (Become a government informer: fabulous prizes to be won!).

Eventually you scare the insurgents enough that they stop working together effectively and you can slowly roll up those involved.

One of the biggest problems is that the Shia actually celebrate getting killed - to them it is an instant ticket to paradise. The most important person in their religion (except perhaps for Mohammed) is a guy who made a suicidal charge with no hope of even doing significant damage to the enemy.

The sunni know that in a democracy the Shia will control the government and do their best to get a little payback for the last couple decades. Sunnis have all the incentive in the world to make sure this government doesn't survive.

Shia really dont care one way or another - the longer this goes on the more Sunni get killed (as i said, Shia casualties are irrelevant).

The Kurds are keeping autonomous so they don't give a shit one way or another. They have their own military and have actually offered to send troops into the rest of Iraq to keep the peace, but the US and Iraqi governments don't want to do this for some unknown reason. Being autonomous it would not be hard for them to simply declare independence if the government started interfering too much.

You are left with a situation where the majority of the people have no interest in peace and a large portion of the populace has an active desire to continue the conflict.

Any way you look at it - there is no reasonable solution unless one wants to get truly brutal to end the violence. I dont see much point to it as all you would be doing is handing the country over to the Shia (and thus Iran) anyway.

The situation is equivalent to what would have happened if we won Vietnam and the population voted in the communists anyway. Lives and fortunes spent on nothing.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

Killing didn't solve the problem, so now we're gonna try mass destruction. Oh, wait! Wasn't that what we went for? Weapons of mass destruction? :rolleyes:

Don't feed the troll!

Why not just give them what they want? A state for the Sunnites, one for the Shiites, one for the Kurds. But then of course the US would lose influence on them...

Don't feed the troll!

But I'm a humanitarian.

MTAE strikes again!!

Allowing a genocide to happen and doing nothing has disastrous consequences and none of us can morally allow it to transpire. Look at what occurred in Rwanda and Sudan; heinous deeds went unnoticed, far away from the eyes of the West, and millions suffered as a result. History cannot repeat itself again, not when we have the potential to put an end to the bloodshed. Who cares about our "tarnished image" when we can save lives?

Apparently we can't save lives. It's like walking down the street and seeing a guy clutch his stomach and grimace in pain. So you do the only reasonable thing that occurs to you. Whip out a knife and stab him in the lower abdomen to perform an emergency appendectomy (did I mention you have no medical training).

Then when onlookers move to stop you, you start complaining that they were wrong not to take action. The man was in pain and you took action. No one else did anything to alleviate the poor man's gastrointestinal distress. And then when the man begins to bleed to death and you begin to shove his ruptured entrails back into the hole you created so that you can duct-tape them back in, you accuse those who start yelling "call an ambulance" of undermining your efforts to save his life. And when they start calling the police you yell "this is no time to play the blame game. This man is bleeding to death! Whether or not he was bleeding to death before I stabbed him is a question that we will have to neglect for now until we correct this situation. Now where did I put my duct tape? And nobody is calling an ambulance. This man is scared enough without people telling him he needs medical attention."

So your solution is simply to kill even more Muslims? You're a smart one alright.
I disagree with everything he said, but he isn't saying "kill muslims" he is saying kill people who happen to be muslim.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

So your solution is simply to kill even more Muslims? You're a smart one alright.

I disagree with everything he said, but he isn't saying "kill muslims" he is saying kill people who happen to be muslim.

and the difference is.....?

and the difference is.....?
If someone is murdered indiscriminately, was a person murdered, or was a christian/atheist/hindu/buddhist murdered? Why label victims with religion if it has nothing to with the thought process of killing them.

Genocide!!!!

Genocide!!!!

*jams on an electric guitar to this post*

If someone is murdered indiscriminately, was a person murdered, or was a christian/atheist/hindu/buddhist murdered? Why label victims with religion if it has nothing to with the thought process of killing them.

But it does. The OP clearly says, kill Sunnis (in mass quantities) if someone who happens to be a Sunni commits murder. Same with Shi'as.

Genocide is what the OP is advocating.

I can't believe I actually have to point this out.

But it does. The OP clearly says, kill Sunnis (in mass quantities) if someone who happens to be a Sunni commits murder. Same with Shi'as.

Genocide is what the OP is advocating.

I can't believe I actually have to point this out.
Ah, of course. Stupid me only skimmed over some of it. Sorry Soviestan, you were right.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

But would this be effective enough? We're talking about group that beleive Martyrs will go to heaven and so on.
So to stop sectarian violence I propose that every time a [insert faction] attack another faction a tactical nuke is dropped on a village/town/city dominate by it!

Wasn't MTAE's coincidentally similar MO that he happened to have the solution to all of society's ills, presented them in a flowery and ludicrous fashion, that they almost always included keeping down or attacking an entire group of people and required us to pretend that we didn't realize it was absurd? Or is it just me?

Meanwhile, has any rational debate sprung from this post in the last seven pages, because it pretty much seems like it simply generated post after post of "that's idiotic"?

Wasn't MTAE's coincidentally similar MO that he happened to have the solution to all of society's ills, presented them in a flowery and ludicrous fashion, that they almost always included keeping down or attacking an entire group of people and required us to pretend that we didn't realize it was absurd? Or is it just me?

Yep, exactly the same.

Lots of us are convinced it's either MTAE, or someone who's trying to emulate the same style. Neither would surprise me.

Meanwhile, has any rational debate sprung from this post in the last seven pages, because it pretty much seems like it simply generated post after post of "that's idiotic"?

Again correct.

And FreedomAndGlory hasn't seemed to show up either. So, no real fun.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

Stop watching swordfish...

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. You're right. Bush is to blame for this. Thanks for stating that so clearly.

Stop watching swordfish...

10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0

First place so far in thread.

You're right. Bush is to blame for this. Thanks for stating that so clearly.So who will save Iraq now? Bush?

If someone is murdered indiscriminately, was a person murdered, or was a christian/atheist/hindu/buddhist murdered? Why label victims with religion if it has nothing to with the thought process of killing them.

Its not indscriminate. He's saying kill them based on religion.

I think that before we bash the OP we should look at his idea removed from morality as from that POV his argument holds no weight. If we were to conduct reprisal attacks several possible things could develop.

1) Sectarian Violence goes way down- Militias from both sides get the message that their attacks are counter-productive.

2) Sectarian killers adapt- They see that when one Shiia dies, 10 Sunni die. So the Shiia kill one Shiia from a rival clan and they get a double victory. This leads to increased death

3) Insurgency grows- With coalition forces targeting civilians, the people become agitated. The ranks of the Insurgency swell.

4) The Iraqi gov't is abandoned- Surely the Iraqi gov't would never condone a COA such as this so their legitimacy would be terminated. Seeing the gov't as powerless Iraqis abandon the democratic way.

The OP reminds me of the line from the movie Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket "Deep inside every gook, there is an American trying to get out..."

As I see it, very few people in Iraq actually like the US forces. To think that if we stay longer the people will suddenly love us and adopt our governmental system is nothing short of delusional.

Its not indscriminate. He's saying kill them based on religion.
Yeah, I was acting stupid and only skimmed over it. Thats why I said you were indeed correct a few posts up.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.

The dire predicament in which we are find ourselves in Iraq bellows for a decisive plan to be formulated to reduce the crippling violence and bloodshed. The time has passed for good-will to suffice; our scheme of tempting the Iraqis with the alluring carrot of freedom and democracy has fouled as the vegetable has rotted. Thus, our only recourse at this point is the indefatigable stick. We should yield the stick powerfully and without remorse, never wavering in our dedication to afford the Iraqis a chance for liberty. Unfortunately, we have frittered away our chances and eroded our potential for diluted measures; our medicine of last resort is bitter, but must be taken to prevent an even more ravaging infection.

Swift and brutal reprisal attacks have historically been proven to be the best way of taming a wild and unruly populance; we should not now hesitate to employ a similar ploy. Specifically, we should control the sectarian violence by using mutual hatred as a tool to maintain order. Every time one Shia dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Sunnis; every time one Sunni dies due to sectarian violence, we should kill ten Shias. Only by this method can we adequately subjugate the sectarian militias; their relentless assaults will be greatly reduced in number when they realize that by murdering innocent civilians, they are doing more damage than good to their particular sect. Eventually, they will cede power and authority to the peace-loving, democratically-elected, central government, and the nation of Iraq can begin rebuilding itself again.

"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

How appropriate.

As everyone knows, Iraq is descending into a state of anarchic civil war. Many people can be blamed for this unfortunate circumstance; mostly, however, the failure to build Iraq into a prosperous state rests with those who were too squemish to implement stringent measures to control the situation. However, playing the "blame game" is futile in a desperate time such as this, when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance; it is a trite political trick used to delude voters without expounding upon a viable course of action. This particular topic must be neglected until the situation in Iraq has fully resolved itself, one way or another.
.

Yes many people primarily those people who thought that by the use of the gun problems would be solved. You in the rest of your diatribe continue with the same flawed logic. Many of us who questionned this war also asked what the plans were when Hussein was toppled there was no answer. It is not about a blame game it is important to learn from the mistakes made and work in a better way. Otherwise you're liable to end up skewered on the same stick.

This would end sectarian strife in Iraq, but it would essentially revert it to a Saddam-style despotism. It would have all the death and destruction of Hussein's regime, but merely have Sunni-domination changed to majoritarian domination.

"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

How appropriate.

It takes a village....

to firebomb another village.

*your quite frankly ridiculous OP*
Errr...

They tried that in Palestine, you know. And the suicide bombings continued, until Hamas were elected which, ironic as it may sound, seems to have stopped the violence.



How's about we just leave Iraq alone, and let them annihilate the shitty government that we installed, which is going to do nothing but repress people anyway?

Then Al-Sadr can take control, and as Saddam Hussein Mk. 2, maybe he'll pacify the situation somewhat.

And whilst on the face of it, that's a similar situation to yours, it doesn't rely on the Iraqi Government, which is a paper tiger both democratically and militarily, and has done absolutely nothing to ingratiate itself to a public that's worse off now than it was under Saddam.

Yet another thread abandoned by the OP.