How should America go about winning the war on terror ? Your suggestions

[Flip McWho]

Nuke everything not American, Yup including the British

[dojoboy]

America should pay good money to the Iraqi Government to field an army (mercenaries), supply weaponry, and sit back and allow this"democratic" government to use EXTREME measures for eradicating insurgent elements. It will be crucial to make sure the soldiers are well paid.

Once this is in operation, pull US troops out.

[Natalinasmpf]

You are saying, I believe, that Muslims are incapable of modern civilization.

Look at Turkey.

Ned, I can't believe you think that I think Muslims are incapable of modern civilisation...after all that arguing against ML...

I never did say that. In fact if you look at my past stance, I have always thought that Muslims were well capable of a lot of things.

I was poking holes in your argument: you cannot clamp down on hate speech without contradicting the stand on democratic reform! You cannot have both! If you want to encourage democracy, you must encourage criticism, even if its hateful. Suppressing hate speech by force will inevitably undermine the Iraqi's perception of whether the US really wanted to encourage democracy in Iraq. Or any other Muslim country.

Btw, Malaysia is a Muslim country - has lots of hate speech, but is rather democratic. Or at least more democratic than us.

You have freedom unless your use of it is intended to hurt others.

How does hate speech hurt others? Not physically.

Don't we hate viruses, menaces and dictators?

Don't then, do all people have a right to speak out forcefully and hatefully against something they PERCEIVE to be a menace? You don't reduce such perceptions via force - that will encourage even greater reaction. Rather cut the thing at its source, effectively - by public rebuttal, for example. Not arresting or prosecuting or shooting hate inciters.

Plus, its a slippery slope: if you can prosecute people for hate speech, this action can be abused, for prosecuting any other person, not hateful, for not so hateful speech or constructive criticism.

For example, when Iraqis had demonstrations, the wise thing to do was not to have soldiers fire at them, but rather reply to each of their arguments.

It is a democratic right to speak out against anything: and if its strong, so may it be. Do not Iraqis have a right to call the Americans "the enemy, infidels, etc.?" because they have a right to their views...don't we call our politicians, among other things, retards, nutcases, bastards, fatheads and several other things?

I mean, how would you feel if suddenly a politician prosecuted you for hate speech for calling him or her a nutcase? Speech, hateful or not, or expression of views make the politicians in power keep on their toes, and at constructive, functional work...well at least some of the time.

Else, well, it could slip into tyranny. Its one of the major checks of it.

[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.

[Heresson]

There's a difference between a constructive criticism and a hate speech.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
1) Fat chance

2) Fat chance

3) Right

4) Right

5) Second part is right.

If you want to bring possibility into this debate:

Originally posted by Ned
1) Re-elected GWB.

2) Promote democracy in Muslim countries.

3) End hate speech and hate education in muslim schools and mosques.

4) Promote a free press in Muslim countries.

5) Kick France out of the UN.

2) Fat chance

3) Fat chance

4) Fat chance

5) Impossible

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?

The last one would need war or the consent of the UNSC. Neither's going to happen.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by dannubis
now this is an interesting point of view

i believe hitler had one of those too ...

I think you are thinking of Ancient Rome....whcih lasted quite awhile using these strategies.

[Heresson]

Early Rome was one of the most bloody, deceitful, hypocritic regimes in the world history. And look what a great civ it's built

[Natalinasmpf]

There's a difference between a constructive criticism and a hate speech.

The right to expression in a democracy does not necessarily have to be constructive. What about the uneducated who do not know how to articulate? Furthermore, the line can become blurred between "constructive" and "hate"...

FURTHERMORE, don't forget, there's a slippery slope involved when prosecution becomes involved in political expression, hateful, inciteful, or otherwise.

AND, not to mention, the sheer NEW anger involved when prosecuting or arresting or suppressing someone angry rather than dealing with it via rebuttal, reduction of unrest, ie. more diplomacy with the peoples.....

Encouragement, development and conduciveness, NOT force, hostility and suppression.

[Natalinasmpf]

Early Rome was one of the most bloody, deceitful, hypocritic regimes in the world history. And look what a great civ it's built

It fell to barbarians who wore no armour...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

It fell to barbarians who wore no armour...

The Ottoman Turks didn't wear armor?

It fell because the government spent too much damn time fighting amoungst itself, and not reform the infantry-heavy Legions to meet the Horepeoples of the Visigoths and the HUns.

The East Romans at least did that.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned

5) Kick France out of the UN.

Explain the logic behind that.

France has had problems with domestic islamic terrorism for ages and has learned how to deal with it. Don't even think of forgetting your travel bag in the Paris subway.

[Natalinasmpf]

01-10-2004 23:45 | profile | www | pm | search | buddy | aim
edit | quote
link | report | ip
Increase Your PM Length


quote:
Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

It fell to barbarians who wore no armour...



The Ottoman Turks didn't wear armor?

It fell because the government spent too much damn time fighting amoungst itself, and not reform the infantry-heavy Legions to meet the Horepeoples of the Visigoths and the HUns.

The East Romans at least did that.

I meant Western Rome....

Byzantine would get sacked by the Crusaders...

[Lonestar]

Who wore armor.

And the Barbarian invasion dealie was because of the reasoning I gave. PLus using Lead for plumbing in the upperclasses, precipetating massive lead poisioning.

[Natalinasmpf]

Yes, but thats not the point. Its not one of the greatest civs ever built - Greece contributed more to culture than Rome did.

Yes, Rome did give us great battle stories and the Shakespearan Drama of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony, but thats not quite the same.