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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[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?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned


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!

You know you have won a debate when replies like this start to come.

Why don't you try logic and arguments instead of labels and insults?

I'm a moderate, by the way, and would probably vote republican (but not for Bush) if I lived in US. But that's probably leftist in Nedaverse.

[Ned]

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.

Since you seem to fundamentally agree with Bush, why do you call him a nutcase?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

Why don't you try logic and arguments instead of labels and insults.

I'm a moderate, by the way, and would probably vote republican (but not for Bush) if I lived in US. But that's probably leftist in Nedaverse.

You ignored my argument. So don't claim you won.

You cannot seriously consider yourself to be a Republican if you cannot bring yourself to vote for Bush. Bush has the greatest support of his own party in recent history and perhaps ever.

[Chemical Ollie]

What argument?


I would have voted for Bush in 2000, but not this time. Now he has proven how incompetent he is.

(Have to go now, real life calling. Back in 6 hours)

[Ned]

I take you cannot read.

[Natalinasmpf]

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Ned]

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.

[Sava]

OF COURSE WE NEED TO ELECT GEORGE W BUSH OR ELSE THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN!

[Ned]

Sava, do you seriously believe that Kerry would have gone to war against the Taliban or Saddam?

[Heresson]

Yes, we should have all appealed to Hitler instead of fighting him...