Iraq 1 year later

[DemoCoder]

Your homocide rate makes the risk of getting murdered about 1/15,000 per year, a good 3 or 4 times higher than other countries

Absolutely false. It makes you risk of getting murdered 3-4 times higher if you are of a certain age, social class, and "occupation", and live in certain regions. I live in Silicon Valley, homicide rate here is 2.4 per 100,000. Just a 30 minute drive away is Oakland, with a very high homicide rate. It all depends where you live. Middle class people don't have a triple to quadruple chance of dying.

Moreover, the murder rate in the US has remained higher than other nations since the civil war, well before the rise of semiautomatic handguns. The handgun control nuts just don't understand that the problem with violence in the US goes beyond gun ownership.

 

[epicstruggle]

Mintmaster, I read your first post, and thought the appropriate reply should just be: . Then I thought better and decided to add one thing.

The whole iraq issue sits on a sort of scale, you have a war that removed saddam and restores some power back to the people, and on the other you have saddam and his sons still in power. WITHOUT the war you would never have had him leave voluntarily. So whats on the scale, well you mentioned 10,000+ thousand iraqies dead, and 500+ american soldiers. The other side of the scale has 500,000 dead iraqies in mass graves who disagreed with saddam, you have thousands of rape victims, you have children/women starving while palaces are build for the few.

Yes having saddam still in power would have been so much better.

later,
epic

 

[Mintmaster]

DemoCoder, you make a few good points, but a few I'll challenge you on. And thanks for correcting my gay spelling. I even typed it correctly into google, don't know what I was doing.

First off, Canadian guns (at least the ones not smuggled from the US into criminal hands) are mostly hunting rifles and such, not the most convenient thing to rob a store or break into a house with. That where this discussion started. I was talking about how a few AK-47s are far less of a threat than all the handguns out there.

Some sources of death, like cigarettes, are a choice. Cars, well, you do what you can to make better and safer drivers. I don't think it's much different from other countries. Gun violence, however, is a good 3-5 times higher than it should be, comparing with other nations, which is why I think it's a problem. Random deaths also happen in robberies and other crime, and of course having a gun also helps in all types of crime.

I know there's a big difference between 9/11 and 3,000 murders, but we're not talking about one year of gun violence. You add up the excess homicides (by that I mean greater than it should be) over years and years and we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. I don't that excess is all innercity poor either, although I have no idea where to compare homicide demographics between nations. Anyway, it was just a comparison. Clearly crime and terrorism are two very different issues. I don't think I have much more to say about guns.

As for terrorism, I never said the root of the problem was poverty. It's the hatred of the US and western life being tied in with religion, and the propagation of these beliefs. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who have solid information about Al-Qaeda, but chances these people are sympathic to the AQ cause, and may be potential recruits. Helping to solve poverty and suffering children just seems to me a way of conveying good intentions, and the rewarding process is a way to make more Muslims actively seek to stop AQ from within. I can't think really think of any very different way of doing that. This whole thing would have to be structured very carefully.

I have a hard time believing that this particular terrorist problem is caused by funding from Arab states. I mean 9/11 wasn't exactly a high-expense operation. I guess I don't know anything about how these organizations are run, but if someone really wants to commit a terrorist act, it won't take much for him to do it. That's why I think the mentality has to change, or the problem will never go away.

Success in Iraq is a still a huge if IMO, and having it spread to neighbouring countries is a bigger one. I understand the need to break some eggs to make an omelet, but nearly 10,000 civilians makes for some damn valuable eggs, and the omelet isn't guaranteed to appear. If all these wonderful things do indeed happen, then I'll be proven wrong.

 

[Mintmaster]

DemoCoder, 2.4 per 100,000 is still pretty high for a "good" area, isn't it? I mean if the national average in Canada is around 2, surely if you discount bad areas like poorer areas of Vancouver and Toronto it would be much lower.

Anyways, that's why I said demographics are probably necessary for me to make any real statement.

EDIT: It's 1.85 in Canada. As an example of a "good" region, Newfoundland has a rate of 0.38 per 100,000.

 

[Ty]

Ty:
But I do believe they are relevant to America. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Indian Holocaust are all proof that mass killing can occur even in the US, committed by both Democrats and Republicans, neither of which is really any better than the other.

I agree those could be instances of the government going too far but that's a far far cry from a totalitarian regime. Furthermore those cases all had guns and where did it get them? What if Koresh didn't have weapons? Would they have surrendered peacefully leaving the whole incident to blow away in the wind? Heck, wasn't it because he had stockpile of weapons in the first place that the government went it? So if he never had them in the first place then I bet nothing would have occured (not that I'm laying blame on them for it mind you, but I think you see my point).

In other words, (and this sounds silly read face value) I think guns enable violence to a certain degree. That is, with a gun sides are often drawn into escalating conflict.

 

[Ty]

The handgun control nuts just don't understand that the problem with violence in the US goes beyond gun ownership.

But does the proliferation of guns enable it? I agree, it's not just guns in general (our society seems to be very individualistic & hence competitive - perhaps that breeds more aggression?).

 

[Mintmaster]

Joe, your remarks are really appalling. Do you lump all Muslims as US hating assholes that must die and deserve nothing? There's only a handful doing all these horrible things, but the best chance of stopping them is from within the Muslim population.

I never meant to say outright eliminate the "great satan" perception, but reduce it. Isn't this hunting down you suggest the same thing that Israel is doing? Is there any end to violence in sight? You can put out a fire with wood if it completely cuts of the oxygen, but if not, that fire is only going to get bigger.

Anyway, I can't convince you Joe. The way you're replying to my posts, you saying all Muslims are terrorists, all Muslim nations are terrorist states, and the only way out is to kill them all. You even specifically cut out the part of my blurb regarding welfare that said only a few are abusing it.



To everyone else,

I'm not saying this is the definitive solution. Maybe you don't give anything until 5 years of zero terrorist activity, and just show them the money is being collected. But with hundreds of billions of dollars, there's got to be some way of making Muslims states and their people more active in blocking their children from being lured in by these organizations. Some way of saying something like, "if you did more to prevent this, 20,000 of your children would be alive today, painfully and relutantly supported at the expense of western economies".

I think I'm done on the subject. If no-one wants to give it a second thought, and everyone thinks its the stupidest idea of the century, then so be it. DemoCoder, I really hope your right, but not only do I have doubts about democracy being so easy to establish and proliferate, I don't think it will stop these organizations, even if their current primary income source of Arab states is cut off.

 

[DemoCoder]

2.4 per 100,000 is still pretty high for a "good" area, isn't it? I mean if the national average in Canada is around 2, surely if you discount bad areas like poorer areas of Vancouver and Toronto it would be much lower.

Anyways, that's why I said demographics are probably necessary for me to make any real statement.

Well, the area I live is average. A "good" area in Silicon Valley would be Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View, Foster City, etc. I live close to San Jose which has a large mexican (many illegal) population which as you can imagine alters the demographic picture.

Mountain View's rate is 1.3. Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, Foster City, etc all have similar stats. I used to live in Bethesda and Foster City, which went multiple years without any homicides.

Crime rate in the US depends on region and demographics. Obviously, urban areas will have a higher rate, as will areas with more poverty, or more ethnic strife.

The US's high murder rate is a function of it's demographic history and of the drug war. Guns are not the causitive factor. They are a statistical correlation, but there are many nations with high gun ownership but low levels of homicide, Canada is one of them. Hell, I wouldn't even go so far as to blame everything on the drug war or slavery. There's a cultural difference in America. We're just more violent. Maybe it's our revolutionary history vs Canada's peaceful transition to an independent country. Maybe it was the civil war. Maybe it's American egocentrism, exceptionalism, that drives some to think they can resort to violence. I dunno. All I know is that the idea that guns are the root cause is too simplistic. Even Michael Moore, the blustering idiot of gun control and Canadaphile would agree.

 

[Mintmaster]

You're right DC, but I still think guns would make a difference. Here in Toronto, homicide rates are slowly rising. There is a national gun registry trying to get underway, but it's costs are ballooning, and critics keep talking about how nearly all homicides are committed with US weapons anyway.

But it could very well simply be that your culture is permeating across the border, and guns have nothing to do with it. It could be the sense of fear, paranoia, and subsequent lack of trust fuelled by the media that Michael Moore talked about.

But really, the ease with which people have the ability to commit a murder has to play some role.

Oh yeah, BTW, I added some Canadian rates above.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, if you were able to remove every gun, there would be some change in the homicide rate, but it's technically infeasible to do that. However, I highly doubt there would be any change in the number of non-handgun homicides, rapes, robbies, and assaults which are also high.

More research needs to be done into the causes of American violence.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, your remarks are really appalling. Do you lump all Muslims as US hating assholes that must die and deserve nothing?

No, the sarcasm is apparently lost on you....do you lump all Americas as "Mulim hating assholes"?

Anyway, I can't convince you Joe.

The way you're replying to my posts, you saying all Muslims are terrorists, all Muslim nations are terrorist states, and the only way out is to kill them all.

I don't know how you got that idea into your head.

What I'm saying is that the way out is to kill all the terrorists. Obviously that's a ridiculously simplistic statement. We'll never "kill them all." But you can make the decision to "become" a terrorist all that much difficult to make knowing that someone with resolve is going to be breathing down your neck every day. That the "higher up" in the ranks you become, the harder and harder and the more likely it is that you will be hunted down and destroyed.

"Muslims" are not the enemy, nor have I ever said or implied that. The enemy is those would would teach hate. And we're not going to win the war by appeasing that hatred and showing that "if you hate enough, you'll make progress". That only encourages it.

I'm not saying this is the definitive solution. Maybe you don't give anything until 5 years of zero terrorist activity, and just show them the money is being collected.

You talk about me saying that Muslims are the Enemy? "Hey, let's dangle this carrot in front of them...even though it's not their fault, we'll put conditions on the money!"

I can't believe you're such a Muslim hater.

I think I'm done on the subject. If no-one wants to give it a second thought, and everyone thinks its the stupidest idea of the century, then so be it. DemoCoder, I really hope your right, but not only do I have doubts about democracy being so easy to establish and proliferate, I don't think it will stop these organizations, even if their current primary income source of Arab states is cut off.

Where did you get the idea that democracy was either easy to establish or maintain? That's the point....it's not. It takes work, resolve, and courage. It's after you go through hell to establish your democracy, that you get a taste for it, that you actually come to realize how much it's worth it to keep it that way.

 

[Mintmaster]

I don't know how you got that idea into your head.

Give these people some respect.

I have no respect for the people who are teaching the hatred that is instilled in the once innocent children.

Who do you think I'm talking about? We're giving the aid to Muslims, not terrorists. I'm asking you give these people some respect. We're not yet at the point of the Palestine-Israel conflict where all school-children are taught Israel has no right to exist. The vast majority of Muslims do not think the same of US citizens, and felt really bad about 9/11 happening.

But now that you've invaded Iraq, we'll be getting somewhat closer to that point. You've given them less reason to try and root out terrorist recruitment from within. If you invaded Iraq with less bombing, more respect for Iraqi civilians' lives, and appeared less selfish about the economics involved, maybe this wouldn't be so. As it is, we've just given these organizations more recruitment lecture material.

The welfare blurb showed the same thing. Welfare is given to the less fortunate, but you're always going to find the select few who abuse it and don't need it. But here's your analogy:

If you have the means to get a job, but instead you are being taught that you don't have a job because I'm the evil Satan, then the person who's teaching you that I'm the evil Satan deserves to die.

Yeah, no kidding. But 99% of the people who would be getting the aid are not like that.

Now do you see how I got that impression from you? Whenever I talked about the general Muslim public, you replied solely with references to terrorsts, teachers of hate, terrorist states, etc.

"Muslims" are not the enemy, nor have I ever said or implied that. The enemy is those would would teach hate. And we're not going to win the war by appeasing that hatred and showing that "if you hate enough, you'll make progress". That only encourages it.

Yeah, you've just hit the central point that I've been trying to make in all this. At the moment, teaching hate does nothing negative for them. With billions of dollars, there has got to be a way for us to show the few who are teaching hate that doing so will have a direct negative affect on them, and we know that force just doesn't work for this particular group of people. Maybe you don't even tell the public, and this is done through the government only, and they find a way to start anti-terrorist organizations. We haven't tried anything along these lines, and there must be some way to spark destruction of hate from within. My exact idea may not be the best way, it's just all I could think of along these lines.

Where did you get the idea that democracy was either easy to establish or maintain? That's the point....it's not. It takes work, resolve, and courage. It's after you go through hell to establish your democracy, that you get a taste for it, that you actually come to realize how much it's worth it to keep it that way.

I think my perception of "easy" is a lot different than yours. Using military force and providing "work, resolve and courage" is what I call easy. When Arab states start to have complete democracy and freedom and start showing the same "infidel" behaviour as western countries, I fear a rapidly growing number of people who want to target the US and its supporters for doing this.

Furthermore, there is a very different society in the Arab states. Do you think the strict forms of Islam they are practicing would be so popular if these people were so thirsty for freedom? They have very different values than we do, which is why I don't buy your argument of how easy it is to sell democracy to them once they've tasted it. I don't know of any other way to get democracy going, and that's why I think it's hard.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Who do you think I'm talking about? We're giving the aid to Muslims, not terrorists.

You're making no sense. Explain...why do we need to give aid to "Muslims?"

I'm asking you give these people some respect.

Since when don't they have it? Wo do them a disrespect by giving them hand-outs as some attempt to buy them out. You're saying they need our money in order some of them to "choose" not to be brainwashed by fundamentalist / terrorist propaganda and teaching?

That's what I call a lack of respect.

We're not yet at the point of the Palestine-Israel conflict where all school-children are taught Israel has no right to exist. The vast majority of Muslims do not think the same of US citizens, and felt really bad about 9/11 happening.

So then...why do they need our money again? If the vast majority are already sympathetic to us...then what's the problem? (Or more specifically, how does giving them money help solve any problem, and is not an insult to their intelligence?)

But now that you've invaded Iraq, we'll be getting somewhat closer to that point. You've given them less reason to try and root out terrorist recruitment from within.

I don't get it.

How does ousting Sadam give "Muslims" legitimate reason to do anything? Are we kicking Muslims out of Iraq? Bansihing them? You keep telling me I have some "lack of respect" for Muslims, and yet, you give them no credit for differentiating between ousting Sadam, and attacking Muslims?!

If you invaded Iraq with less bombing, more respect for Iraqi civilians' lives....

Oh, now this is too much.

This particular war as so focused on technology and methods to minimize collateral damage it's beyond belief that you could ask that there be "more respect" or concern about it.

The welfare blurb showed the same thing. Welfare is given to the less fortunate, but you're always going to find the select few who abuse it and don't need it.

Agreed.

But here's your analogy:

If you have the means to get a job, but instead you are being taught that you don't have a job because I'm the evil Satan, then the person who's teaching you that I'm the evil Satan deserves to die.

Yeah, no kidding. But 99% of the people who would be getting the aid are not like that.

Says who? I say that 99% of the people getting benefits, whatever their "situation" (good or bad motivations) will still be pissed off at the benefits being reduced or eliminated.

Yeah, you've just hit the central point that I've been trying to make in all this. At the moment, teaching hate does nothing negative for them. With billions of dollars, there has got to be a way for us to show the few who are teaching hate that doing so will have a direct negative affect on them,

Please, explain "the way."

and we know that force just doesn't work for this particular group of people.

I disagree. "Half-hearted" force doesn't work. Toss a cruise missle here or there, "mere retaliatory" tit for tat strikes don't work.

The jury is out on whether sustained, proactive rooting out of terrorists will work or not.

Maybe you don't even tell the public, and this is done through the government only, and they find a way to start anti-terrorist organizations.

We have them. It's called the Armed Forces, CIA, and special ops. Or are you suggesting "anti-terrorist terrorists?"

Furthermore, there is a very different society in the Arab states. Do you think the strict forms of Islam they are practicing would be so popular if these people were so thirsty for freedom?

??

I tihnk anyone who believes that people don't "thirst for freedom" has a wire loose. If anything, freedom to practice Islam.

They have very different values than we do, which is why I don't buy your argument of how easy it is to sell democracy to them once they've tasted it. I don't know of any other way to get democracy going, and that's why I think it's hard.

You are right. It is hard. Especially after having little control over your own life for so long. It will take generations to fully realize it's potential.

That doesn't mean it's not worth it. Quite the contrary in fact.

 

[Mintmaster]

Joe, it seems you don't really understand my idea. If we knew who the hate-teachers are, we wouldn't really have a problem.

But we don't. They are a few sprinkled among the hundreds of millions of Muslims. But if they see that they will be hurting Muslim children by promoting their hatred, maybe they won't. Right now, there's no reason for them to stop.

This idea is something that is totally out of character for the Western world. Muslims can't possibly think that if terrorism holds up, we'll just give them more - it's just too obvious and predictable that we'll say "too bad, we gave you a chance". They already know we're just as likely to (and would rather) spend the money attacking their non-democratic nations, so they're not going to hate us for giving it to them instead. I'm asking that you give the whole Muslim population credit in that they will see that the aid is making a positive difference. Give them respect in thinking they will start programs to prevent anti-US sentiment, and stop the few from corrupting the minds of the many. They were likely sympathetic after 9/11, but that doesn't mean they're motivated enough to actively weed out anti-US thoughts from their society.

Our propaganda is no match for theirs, you are right in that. This is a method for enticing them to generate their own anti-terrorist propaganda.

But now that you've invaded Iraq, we'll be getting somewhat closer to that point. You've given them less reason to try and root out terrorist recruitment from within.

I don't get it.

How does ousting Sadam give "Muslims" legitimate reason to do anything?

This particular war as so focused on technology and methods to minimize collateral damage it's beyond belief that you could ask that there be "more respect" or concern about it.

The fact is you went in and invaded a sovereign nation, and killed nearly 10,000 Muslims at the expense of about 200 coalition soldiers (at the official end of the war, anyway). Most of them died from the "laser-guided" bombs of the "shock and awe" stage of your campaign. The mere name clearly illustrates how reducing civilian casualties isn't a priority. Hell, your government's official statement regarding this matter is "we don't count civilian casualties".

Why did you drop these bombs? Because you wanted to disable the enemy so that your ground troops would have a better chance. If you didn't bomb so heavily, there would likely be more Iraqi troops fighting, more coalition soldiers dead, and more backlash and criticism at home.

If you went in with the primary objective of protecting the Iraqi people, you wouldn't have had this mentality. I wouldn't be hearing a story about a van full of civilians blown up because it didn't stop as it neared a base. I know about the suicide bombers, but the most technologically advanced army in the world can't stop a van without blowing it up?

This is the kind of message that's being sent to the Muslims around the world. When Bush talks about the contracting process, it reinforces the claim that you just went in for the oil.

Saying that you did everything you could to protect Iraqi civilians is just patriotic blindness. You couldn't sell it to me, and you sure as hell couldn't sell it to the Arab media. I can't believe you think Muslims are thanking you for ousting Saddam rather than scolding you for killing their people and invading for selfish reasons.

The way you're replying to my posts, you saying all Muslims are terrorists, all Muslim nations are terrorist states, and the only way out is to kill them all.

I don't know how you got that idea into your head.

But here's your analogy:

If you have the means to get a job, but instead you are being taught that you don't have a job because I'm the evil Satan, then the person who's teaching you that I'm the evil Satan deserves to die.

Yeah, no kidding. But 99% of the people who would be getting the aid are not like that.

Says who?

I can't argue with this kind of stereotyping.

Bye. I hope someone else can contribute something useful to this thread.

 

[Silent_One]

....I dismissed my idea as naive and idealistic until someone on CNN suggested the same thing for the Israel-Palestine conflict.

And that makes your idea realistic and practical?

....there's got to be some way of making Muslims states and their people more active in blocking their children from being lured in by these organizations.....

How?

....there has got to be a way for us to show the few who are teaching hate that doing so will have a direct negative affect on them....

Again, how?

If you went in with the primary objective of protecting the Iraqi people.....

How do we "go in" and do that? For all the talk you offer nothing concrete, nothing to help the situation. All you do is criticize the current situation and suggest that there "must be someway" to do it better.

 

[PatrickL]

we will see no peace in that area until USA stop to blindly support one side instead of make them negociate and FORCE them to apply the result of the negociations. And force BOTH sides.

The last 2 times hamas agrred on a cessez-le-feu, it was isarel that broke it by killing hamas leaders.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, it seems you don't really understand my idea.

I think I do, but by all means explain it better or point out how I don't.

If we knew who the hate-teachers are, we wouldn't really have a problem. But we don't.

We don't?

Al Qaeda leadership, Hamas leadership, etc...these aren't the "top" of the hate-teachers? These aren't the ones giving the cash and resources to promote it?

They are a few sprinkled among the hundreds of millions of Muslims. But if they see that they will be hurting Muslim children by promoting their hatred, maybe they won't. Right now, there's no reason for them to stop.

You are working under the assumption (which I believe is wrong) that the "hate teachers" actually care about the typical Muslim. From where I sit, all they care about is their own power, and they're using "Muslims" and Islam as the tool.

If Muslims start suffering more, the "hate teachers" will do what they always do...inform the masses that their suffering is The Great Satan's fault.

The fact is you went in and invaded a sovereign nation, and killed nearly 10,000 Muslims at the expense of about 200 coalition soldiers (at the official end of the war, anyway). Most of them died from the "laser-guided" bombs of the "shock and awe" stage of your campaign. The mere name clearly illustrates how reducing civilian casualties isn't a priority. Hell, your government's official statement regarding this matter is "we don't count civilian casualties".

First of all...I thought it was 10,000 Iraqis, not 10,000 Muslims.

Second, you really think that's a large number considering the objective: overthrow the gov't?! Every life lost is tragic, but doing it the "conventional way" would've been far more tragic...on all sides.

Why did you drop these bombs? Because you wanted to disable the enemy so that your ground troops would have a better chance.

Actually, there were multiple reasons:

1) Specific targeting of leadership, in hopes of actually killing specific leaders.

2) Just giving the Iraqi opposition the clue of what our power is, hopefully demoralizing many to the point where they just don't put up a fight and surrender.

BOTH of these things are designed to minimize actual combat which saves live of both Americans, and Iraqis.

This is not to say anything about Iraqi's positioning themselves in civilian infrastructures like hospitals. You think maybe if the "Iraqi leadership cared so much about Muslims, they wouldn't do that."

If you didn't bomb so heavily, there would likely be more Iraqi troops fighting, more coalition soldiers dead, and more backlash and criticism at home.

And a longer war, and more Iraqis dead, and lesser chance of victory.

I don't get what your point is. We devise a war plan that ABOVE ALL is going to give us the best possible chance of adchieving the objective. And there's something wrong with this?

Note that the OBJECTIVES were not just to get rid of Sadam. They were

1) To get rid of Sadam and his regime
2) Save as much of the pyhsical infrastructure as possible
3) Save as much human life as possible

And do all of those in the shortest time possible. (Because the longer it goes on, the more you risk not meeting any or all of those objectives.)

Geeze....of all the things to gripe about, the Coalition execution of the war is jut not one of them.

Saying that you did everything you could to protect Iraqi civilians is just patriotic blindness.

That's because we're not saying that.

What we're saying is we did everything we could, while still keeping our objectives in focus. Because in the end achieving the objecitves will mean better things for Iraqis.

You couldn't sell it to me, and you sure as hell couldn't sell it to the Arab media.

Are you Arab or Muslim BTW?

I can't believe you think Muslims are thanking you for ousting Saddam rather than scolding you for killing their people and invading for selfish reasons.

Where did I say MUSLIMS were thanking us. I said IRAQIS. Get that through your head.

You keep on interchanging MUSLIMS and IRAQIS. Last time I checked, these are not one in the same.

I can't argue with this kind of stereotyping.

You think? You mean you can claim that 99% of the people on welfare aren't doing so in an abusive manner....but I can't say that 99% of the people, abusive or not, wouldn't be pissed if their benefits were taken away?

Give me a break.

 

[Mintmaster]

Joe, nearly all the points in your past post are misinterpretations of my points.

We don't?

Al Qaeda leadership, Hamas leadership, etc...these aren't the "top" of the hate-teachers?

You are giving names to all these organizations, and that's why you claim to know who they are. By WHO I mean can you go and find them? Not just the leaders who are in hiding, but the members who are out in the Muslim population spreading hate and recruiting? The answer is no. We can't pinpoint who is causing the problem, we just have a general idea of where it's happening. And given Saddam's rocky relationship with Al-Qaeda, it was probably happening less in Iraq than other countries.

You are working under the assumption (which I believe is wrong) that the "hate teachers" actually care about the typical Muslim. From where I sit, all they care about is their own power, and they're using "Muslims" and Islam as the tool.

This is a valid point, but remember what my central idea is: We are trying to stimulate eradication of hate from within. These guys won't care, but others would. It would likely make it harder to convince potential recruits, and harder to get the average Muslim to the point of being a potential recruit. If there are organizations run by their own countries that are trying to reduce the brainwashing, it would have a much greater effect than our propaganda would.

First of all...I thought it was 10,000 Iraqis, not 10,000 Muslims.

...

Where did I say MUSLIMS were thanking us. I said IRAQIS. Get that through your head.

You keep on interchanging MUSLIMS and IRAQIS. Last time I checked, these are not one in the same.

They are not the same, but the vast majority of Iraqis are Muslims. And Iraq is a very small percentage of the pool of Muslims that terrorist organizations are targetting. Even in America there is mixed opinon about whether Iraqis are thanking us, but even if your were right about that, the rest of the Islamic world will take offence at this war for the reasons mentioned above. They are the ones that will be more easily lured into anti-US brainwashing.

I can't believe you don't see this happening. Even DemoCoder agrees the war will most likely spur more hatred and thus terrorism, it's just that he's of the opinion that it's worth it in the long run.

....but I can't say that 99% of the people, abusive or not, wouldn't be pissed if their benefits were taken away?

There's that communication problem again. First of all, I don't know why you're trying to say "99% of the people wouldn't be pissed", because that's just helping my argument out. Secondly, this part of the discussion has nothing to do with being "pissed off". Here's the dialog:

If you have the means to get a job, but instead you are being taught that you don't have a job because I'm the evil Satan, then the person who's teaching you that I'm the evil Satan deserves to die.

Yeah, no kidding. But 99% of the people who would be getting the aid are not like that.

Says who?

You are clearly saying hate-teachers deserve to die. I agree, but then say 99% of Muslims are not hate-teachers (in fact, I probably underestimated that number). I don't know how you can interpret my statement any other way. Then you clearly disagree by saying "Says who?"

What can I conclude? You think a lot more than 1% of Muslims deserve to die. That means several multiples of 17 million people. I was going to stop talking to you until you showed you didn't know what you were implying. You should be lot more careful in your replies.



As for the war, you really think you minimized civilian casualties given your other objectives? If you didn't do the bombing, there's no way you would have failed - you're just too well trained, equipped, and too big. And like I said, most of the casualties were from bombing, so even 2 to 3 times as long a war without wreckless city bombing would have had far fewer civilian casualties. But, like I said, the US public and media wouldn't take well to such a strategy, especially if there were, say, 1000 US soldiers killed.

I never said "Iraqi leadership cared so much about Muslims, they wouldn't do that." The Iraqi fighters knew they were going to fail and die (of course they didn't say it publically), and many resorted to cheap-ass tactics. But the civilian to soldier casualty ratio is inexcusable, and can't be explained by this alone.

... designed to minimize actual combat which saves live of both Americans, and Iraqis.

What's the point of reducing actual combat casulties to a fraction of the lives lost during the reducing itself?

I am not Muslim, but Sikh. If you look up any history of my people, you'll see that extremist Muslims (Moghuls under the control of Aurangzeb) tried to wipe out my people and the Sikh religion about 300 years ago. I feel the same urgency, if not more, to rid the world of this terror. Most Sikhs, in fact, hold a fair amount of resentment towards Muslims because of this, but I've been through plenty of racism as a child and have no will to inflict the same thing unto others, and that concept is one of the pillars of our religion. This is why the vigilante murder of that Sikh in the US was so ironic and disheartening.

In any case, it doesn't matter what I think about the war. I have Muslim friends from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other regions of the world, and they're plenty pissed about the war and war tactics, even though they live in a democracy. The US has given Al-Qaeda more material to recruit people with, and it's far more concrete than the "great satan" bs that's already working too well.

 

[Mintmaster]

....I dismissed my idea as naive and idealistic until someone on CNN suggested the same thing for the Israel-Palestine conflict.

And that makes your idea realistic and practical?

No, but let me tell you his reasoning. Palestinians are already recieving aid from the UN for humanitarian reasons, like food and shelter for Palestinian children. But some education money is being spent on textbooks that deny Israel's right to exist. He argued that that aid (or more aid, can't remember) should only be given in reward for upholding the ceasefire, only if there are no suicide bombers.

This isn't a plan itself, just a clause he said should be part of any peace agreement. Some extra motivation to help keep it together.

....there's got to be some way of making Muslims states and their people more active in blocking their children from being lured in by these organizations.....

How?

Well, I'm giving a suggestion. There are plenty of variations possible too.

DemoCoder said that behind any negotiation there must be the threat of military force. Well, the US has now already invaded Iraq, so what if there was a pool of military money that was to be devoted towards overthrowing non-democratic nations, but in the absence of terrorist activity that was diverted to humanitarian causes in those countries? I mean the US has shown that it will do whatever it wants and no-one will stop them, so why wouldn't these governments and/or their citizens want to do something to get a piece of that pool? Again, it's not direct cash, but something still useful to them and not harmful to us. I know some of these governments are diverting funds to terrorist groups, but not all. Most civilians still don't support jihad, but probably wouldn't go out of their way to stop it.

I mean if the US plans on continuing their strategy, we're already halfway there. Plenty of money will be spent on military operations anyway.

....there has got to be a way for us to show the few who are teaching hate that doing so will have a direct negative affect on them....

Again, how?

I have to say you and Joe are right on this point. I got carried away, and didn't realize what an unrealistic goal I was implying. Of course the members of Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc will never change their mind. I was sort of thinking several people down the ladder (assuming that how these organizations work).

Still, I think it's possible is to make it harder for them to convince average Muslim people to consider their cause. I think it's possible to make Muslims (again, not those already involved in terrorist groups) more sympathetic to the US if the US did something for them.

If you went in with the primary objective of protecting the Iraqi people.....

How do we "go in" and do that? For all the talk you offer nothing concrete, nothing to help the situation. All you do is criticize the current situation and suggest that there "must be someway" to do it better.

Well I'm trying, but whatever I say is just shot down. What about the modification I proposed in this post?

I know what Joe thinks about Muslims, but do you and everyone else also think there is no way to make the Islamic population think more positively about the US? With or without a reward system or humanitarian donations? I think something like this would garner more support from other nations at least.

 

[DemoCoder]

Mint, I can only see negotiation working without force when two parties are roughly equal in power, and both have alot to lose if the negotiation fails. e.g. see WTO. Sanctions and ostracism (loosing membership to a highly beneficial group) can work.

However, it doesn't always work out. And if you have an assymmetrical relationship, it's paradoxically worse. The more assymmetry, the cheaper cost/benefit a military threat looks to a peaceful negotiation, especially if the smaller player tries to extract too much in negotiations.

As distasteful as it is, governing power ultimately derives from force. It's the government's ultimate fallback to enforcing democratically enacted laws. One reason the UN is so weak and ineffective is because unless the Security Council authorizes force, people will just ignore resolutions. Sanctions only work on economies that rely on the rest of the world, and which don't have vast natural resources to cope with them.