Topic: Well, what do you propose we do now?[Pulling US Troops out of Iraq]

[Archon_Yggdrisil]

With all the money we're throwing into the military, we could have thrown into the CIA, let them handle finding and dealing with terrorists (one of their main jobs) and be done with it. The military presence is really what destabilized Iraq, and while we need some kind of presence in there, I think there are alternatives to military force.

[Jinx ShadowSong]

When we talk about Iraq, especially what to do now, we must realise that democracy does not work on everyone. The Arab had a history of a tribal system, then a religous system, and then back to the tribal system. Terrorism cannot and will never be abolish. Why? because not EVERYONE can be happy.

Killing a leader in this case is sorta a mix of a blessing and a curse. A blessing because the experience is lost and hopefully, the new head honcho won't be as smart (or smarter) or as (or more) ruthless then the previous. A curse because the leader died as a martyr, which is powerful in itself. It gives people a reason to go, he died for his belief, we should too.

And about the Al Quran in the prison. Perhaps you forget that when a muslim really believe in his religion, he will follow it to a letter. While the Al Quran can be compared to the Bible, the value of each text is different for each of its religion. The Bible, we all know, are stories (be it mythical or actual) that was written by men over a number of...centuries I think. The Al Quran is the direct statement of Allah (read God). You do not flush it down the toilet. For muslims, it is important to have the book. First is God, then the Al Quran, then food and water.

And for the people who think the US is winning the war. At what cost? How many innocent civilians, how many soldiers, how many freedom fighters. What did Iraq do to deserve this? The US is trying to save it and introduce the rightful democracy? don't make me laugh. The US might be winning statistically, but they do not have the same faith and motivation these people have. On the long run they are losing. For what?

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

When we talk about Iraq, especially what to do now, we must realise that democracy does not work on everyone. The Arab had a history of a tribal system, then a religous system, and then back to the tribal system. Terrorism cannot and will never be abolish. Why? because not EVERYONE can be happy.

Democracy isn't the problem. It's a strong and stupid belief among some Americans that being devout Muslim means being against democracy, which is utter rubbish. Not everyone being happy doesn't necessarily equate to terrorism, it's just a matter of how unhappy people are.

The what? The Al Koran? Where the hell did the Al come from?

And a lot of Christians believe that the Bible is the direct word of God in the same way as the Koran is, or don't see the difference between the two anyway.

[chaos0xomega]

Now this is just sad, knowing that other contries were faster with transporting food and medical aid to the Katrina victims then the US governament. And those countries had an ozenan in between...

Really, can you prove that using a reliable source? I can, I can type out an entire 10 or so page article from P{opular Mechanics who did a study on this. I would prefer it if I didnt have to since I hate typing that much, but I can.

Perhaps, because the US claimed moral highground ?

So you're saying that the moral highground rightfully belongs to terrorists?

The denial of sleep, the use of barking dogs for intimidation, interrogation seasons lasting for over half a day... the list is long, and that was even the official version...

So you are saying that we shouldn't interrogate prisoners to get info to save lives?

Then put them before an unbiased jury? And i bet, many people are even rather innocent (no evidence and such). But "innocence proves nothing" eh?

Under US law, 'innocent until proven guilty' so yes they would actually be innocent until they were placed befroe a judge and jury. However, they are not US citizens, and choose to fight outside of a group which would fall under the Geneva Conventions.

And pray tell me what the Iraq had to do with that thing?
Sadam wasnt to fond about Al Quaida, you know. I think the US, with their thoughtless invasion simply opened up the "market" for them.

This I can agree with, Iraq still had no proven connection to Al Quaeda, but again, I was talking about Gitmo inmates which are not exclusively Iraqi. However, I will say that it is very likely that there were cells within Iraq. We have found them in the US, Canuckistan, they have reared there heads in several European Countries, and many predominantly Muslim nations since Muslims are where they get most of their membership(dont intend to be biased, just pointing it out).

How can you expect the US forces to protect innocents , Hell they cant even take car of the airport road!

I could have sworn that that road was now very well protected and considered a safe zone.

You are courteous and friendly to the locals of wherever you go, and you don't get aggressive and angry whenever dealing with them.

Can you show me proof that  amajority of US forces in Iraq are acting wrongly? From what I know, many a US soldier has given up their rations to help orphaned children or aided the wounded. Hell, we attacked Iraq, and not once(except for that one shootout) have we hit a mosque, hospital, or a school. Even when the enemy has sought refuge in their.

So you are positing that being nice will end terrorism?

While I agree that that is n impossibility, I have to say that being nicer would probably reduce it in a 'perfect world', really depends on who what when where why etc. etc.

It would be a beginning, together with apologising for all the crap done in the last 6o or so years, together with some financial aid. You should try, that works wonders.

Well, what is too stop the financial aid from ending up in new weapons and such? Germany hasn't suffered an attack yet, maybe we should let you see what its like by not giving you any intel and giving terrorists funds? Not only that but in the past we helped the very people that are trying to kill us now, you know, fighting the russians in afghanistan? Helping them come to power, etc. Didnt really do nothing against them did we?

I actually predict a 6th screw up. Why? Cause the US has'nt learnt its lesson and its "doing it again". We don't deal with crazy dictators? Why on earth is Pakistan in your allies list being a dictatorship. A theocratic country who actually waged war on its neighbour over the fact that land where muslims live belong to pakistan... A country which twice was involved in Ethnic Cleansing. A country that invaded its neighbour on no less than three occassions and is well known for siphoning off CIA money to fight the USSR into its own army against its neighbour. Also for using insurgents trained for taliban and al qaeda when those guys were your best mates to commit killing of hindus in both Azad and Indian Kashmir. And who definitely has a nuke. And a system for delivering it... Please don't tell me this will end well. Despite all my sarky comments this is seriously a bad idea.

Id like to point out that Bush's and hopefully the rest of the governments allegiance is beign shifted from Pakistan to Iraq. Bush even attempted to aid India in its Nuclear weapons and energy programs and give them a push in the right direction, but Congress has stalled that.

When we talk about Iraq, especially what to do now, we must realise that democracy does not work on everyone. The Arab had a history of a tribal system, then a religous system, and then back to the tribal system. Terrorism cannot and will never be abolish. Why? because not EVERYONE can be happy.

If you fragment the country like what happened with Yugoslavia, than everyone can be. From what I know, the Balkans and that area of southeastern Europe has finally stabilized over the years.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

You are courteous and friendly to the locals of wherever you go, and you don't get aggressive and angry whenever dealing with them.

Can you show me proof that  amajority of US forces in Iraq are acting wrongly? From what I know, many a US soldier has given up their rations to help orphaned children or aided the wounded. Hell, we attacked Iraq, and not once(except for that one shootout) have we hit a mosque, hospital, or a school. Even when the enemy has sought refuge in their.

Every video I have seen of US forces in Iraq shows them shouting at locals while pointing guns at them to "GET THE HELL OUT OF THE Yhwh-condemnedED CAR!" etc. This is very obviously not the way to win friends and influence people.

[Dux Aurelius Elysius]

So you're saying that the moral highground rightfully belongs to terrorists?

The moral highground isn't accessible by those that have shown few to no morals.  Attempting to take it becomes more a point of embarassment rather than anything else.  Shock and awe tactics are legalised terrorism and destroyed the infrastructure of the country.  In essence this is far worse than terrorism - not only are they designed to shock the public and military into submission but they also cost lives and continues to do so.  Rebuilding should not be necessary, and is only required because America instigated amoral tactics.

So you are saying that we shouldn't interrogate prisoners to get info to save lives?

Under US law, 'innocent until proven guilty' so yes they would actually be innocent until they were placed befroe a judge and jury. However, they are not US citizens, and choose to fight outside of a group which would fall under the Geneva Conventions.

Did America sign the Bill of Human Rights? (Here's a hint: I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes").  Torturous interrogation, and arbitrarily holding people as prisoner without the certainty of a trial in the near future aren't issues you should even think about arguing for.

While I agree that that is n impossibility, I have to say that being nicer would probably reduce it in a 'perfect world', really depends on who what when where why etc. etc.

Who is certainly a major factor.  Many areas under British forces are on the verge of being returned to Iraqi security, whereas areas under US forces are on the verge of civil war.  While I'm sure that the ground troops are good people who want to help, the training techniques they have received and their subsequent tactical orders from COs seem to be letting them down.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Well we did point out response times. Less than one day for civil war torn sri lanka and for the high altitude pakistan... 2 days for happy USA... Not looking good no matter what.

And the moral high ground does'nt belong to anyone. You don't have to have a winner and loser. There is no moral high ground its just both the terrorists and USA who are trying to compare themselves to each other which is a dumb. And "interrogate" should be replaced by "torture". I can interrogate my brother about why he is late back home. I can't torture him those are two different words with different meanings. Your interrogation is just a euphemism for torture. And under the geneva convention you can't torture people.

You do realise that Saddam and Osama are so radically opposite that Saddam would torture any Al Qaeda member who could be caught? Saddam was mad about keeping his country stable and Al Qaeda were'nt. They had nothing to do with each other. Any cells in Iraq would have been plotting Saddam's demise.

I keep asking people to look for this extremely touching book called forgotten voices. Its a collection of war diaries and eyewitness accounts. Apparently many civilians write out it was the germans who behaved the best. The germans would actively dish out rations and choccy to their "new charges" to keep them happy. The old "evil german" idea was happily thrashed by this book. The fact most soldiery would help people across a road or give a sweetie to kids is'nt that different across the world's professional armies. You can't hit a hospital... most hospitals are rather large buildings that are easy to spot. However the amount of houses bombed and so on come to a sizeable amount. You don't get 100,000 dead civilians by hitting "just" your targets. And i believe two or three weeks ago some marines went "mad" and just murdered some 30 iraqis including opening fire on a car. There was also that incident where a crowd of protestors was fired upon killing a few civilians. Then that apache attack on a wedding party killing a lot of people... There was that attack on pakistan killing 20 odd people in a random house without anyones permision? Those cars shot at randomly?

What Aid does india need with its nukes... It has Nukes and a multiple delivery system that can be used from a variety of sources. Its energy programs are far more green than any US program with more Hydel than almost any nation apart from perhaps china after their new projects. What Aid could you plausibly give? What aid could you plausibly give which India's old trade partners Russia could'nt? And Pakistan is still recieving sizeable Aid for its "role in war on terror".

[Lonewolf]

Really, can you prove that using a reliable source? I can, I can type out an entire 10 or so page article from P{opular Mechanics who did a study on this. I would prefer it if I didnt have to since I hate typing that much, but I can.

Ah yes, i remember that you are technically right. There was something about burning our aid as it passed through the American borders (although it wasnt done, but kept back for a while).

Also read this page about the "fast" response:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,373579,00.html

So you're saying that the moral highground rightfully belongs to terrorists?

Well, the terrorists do, what you expect them to do. Right now the US have less claim on morale highground then them.

So you are saying that we shouldn't interrogate prisoners to get info to save lives?

Interrogating = Torturing ??
Last time i heard you are not even allowed to force a murder with torture to lead you to maybe still living victims.

Under US law, 'innocent until proven guilty' so yes they would actually be innocent until they were placed befroe a judge and jury. However, they are not US citizens, and choose to fight outside of a group which would fall under the Geneva Conventions.

They have still basic human rights, like it or not. But your claim compromises itself:

They are no US citizens, and fought against us outside of a group, so we do not need to proof, that they actually fought against us outside of a group, because they have no rights??

Your logic is flawed here.

However, I will say that it is very likely that there were cells within Iraq. We have found them in the US, Canuckistan, they have reared there heads in several European Countries, and many predominantly Muslim nations since Muslims are where they get most of their membership(dont intend to be biased, just pointing it out).

So, when did you plan an invasion at your federal states, because they obvisously harbour terrorists, what about all those cells in other european countries. You should better start the invasion work, since you have an awful lot of countries to attack 

Well, what is too stop the financial aid from ending up in new weapons and such?

Distribution management?

Germany hasn't suffered an attack yet, maybe we should let you see what its like by not giving you any intel and giving terrorists funds?

A: There is a reason i think, why we havent suffered such attacks.
B: Funding terrorism? You are doing that already indirectly i think. The Iraq war was the single best thing for Al Quaida to happen.

Not only that but in the past we helped the very people that are trying to kill us now, you know, fighting the russians in afghanistan?

You didnt do that out of the thought to help some people. The US did that for the same reason, why they brought Sadam to power.
And you let them drop like a hot potato after they had done their job. The mujahedin had reason to be angry. You simply do not train an army and then simply drop it when not needed anymore. Even the Romans learned that lesson early on.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Germany hasn't suffered an attack yet, maybe we should let you see what its like by not giving you any intel and giving terrorists funds?

Which is a terribly blinkered statement of someone locked in the 2000's. Have you ever heard of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Red Army Fraction, or Movement 2 June? They were/are terrorist groups which were active in Germany. They even killed American military personnel. 

[Abraxas]

I would like to read a document that fellow americans will recognize (and a lot of the europeans).

We hold these Truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

ALL MEN. Not some men... hell, not even all americans, but ALL MEN, be them terrorists or dictators. Saddam Hussein is being given a fair democratic trial (in his own country, I might add) because even someone like him deserves a trial. If nothing else, speedy and fair trials are the beadrock of a democratic system. The fact that any man, no matter what he did or who he did it to... deserves a fair and speedy trial.

No one deserves to sit in a cell for 3 - 4 years. Even if they weren't getting tortured, no one should just sit around for soooooo long with no chance of getting out (or even punished for their crime). You could even argue that it is an injustice to americans that the guilty (the honestly guilty people in Guantanamo) have yet to be punished for their crimes. It's insulting. (I don't know how far you could get with this argument... but it is a new way to look at the same old problem)

[Captain Leonidas]

Which is a terribly blinkered statement of someone locked in the 2000's. Have you ever heard of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Red Army Fraction, or Movement 2 June? They were/are terrorist groups which were active in Germany. They even killed American military personnel. 

Agreed. Europe throughout the 60s and 90s suffered more Terrorist attacks than the US did. From various terrorist groups too; Communist-oriented militants, Socialist militants, Separatists, and even Muslim terrorists. Munich 1972 anyone ?

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

I would like to read a document that fellow americans will recognize (and a lot of the europeans).

We hold these Truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

ALL MEN. Not some men... hell, not even all americans, but ALL MEN, be them terrorists or dictators. Saddam Hussein is being given a fair democratic trial (in his own country, I might add) because even someone like him deserves a trial. If nothing else, speedy and fair trials are the beadrock of a democratic system. The fact that any man, no matter what he did or who he did it to... deserves a fair and speedy trial.

No one deserves to sit in a cell for 3 - 4 years. Even if they weren't getting tortured, no one should just sit around for soooooo long with no chance of getting out (or even punished for their crime). You could even argue that it is an injustice to americans that the guilty (the honestly guilty people in Guantanamo) have yet to be punished for their crimes. It's insulting. (I don't know how far you could get with this argument... but it is a new way to look at the same old problem)

But not black men. No, they're only 3/5 of a man.

Still, I agree with the sentiment.

[Jinx ShadowSong]

When we talk about Iraq, especially what to do now, we must realise that democracy does not work on everyone. The Arab had a history of a tribal system, then a religous system, and then back to the tribal system. Terrorism cannot and will never be abolish. Why? because not EVERYONE can be happy.

Democracy isn't the problem. It's a strong and stupid belief among some Americans that being devout Muslim means being against democracy, which is utter rubbish. Not everyone being happy doesn't necessarily equate to terrorism, it's just a matter of how unhappy people are.

The what? The Al Koran? Where the hell did the Al come from?

Sorry, I'm too used to saying the Al Quran, because in my language that's how you say it, plus I'm technically a muslim. About devout muslim = against democracy, can the American's please look at the biggest muslim state in the world (No it's not in the middle east)? That country is fully democratic...

Now that's been cleared up can we go back to the topic?

We can argue all our life about morality and rights. It is a very dangerous and lengthy topic. The question is what to do now. I don't think America should leave, at least not within the next 3 to 5 years. They have to deal with the opposition, because they have to take responsibility for what happened.

In some sense this is worse than Vietnam. When the North and South fought, one is quite clear of who is the enemy. BUt in Iraq, the street vendor might suddenly pulled out an AK 47 and shoot your best friend. A kid, barely twelve, might be hiding a live bomb. It's tough. Deal with it. Once you get a job, finish it.