[QUOTE=ITR champion]
This represents the type of absurd oversimplification that I normally expect to see from small children and Republicans. Do most Arabs hate us? Yes, which is understandable since we’ve been ruling and abusing several Arab countries indirectly via murderous thugs for the last few decades. Do most Iraqis hate us? Yes, again understandable since we invaded their country under false premises and committed many acts of murder, rape, torture, and abuse, all the while thumping our chests in moral superiority. Does this mean we can abuse Iraqis (and presumably other Arabs) without considering the consequences? Obviously not. First, “most Arabs hate us” is not the same as “all Arabs hate us”; we still have plenty to lose. Second, there are degrees of hatred, and abuse of the type you suggest might push some from “simmering hatred” to “plant an IED hatred”.
[/quote]
Well, given that a certain percentage of Iraqis do hate us at the ‘IED’ level, and that we are unable to woo them back into the ‘simmering’ level, and that there are enough of them to make the current situation unworkable, does it really matter how many more get pushed into the ‘willing to plant bombs’ level, as long as the measures that pushed them that far also stop them from doing that violence?
I mean, isn’t a group of 100 people who would kill all Americans if given the chance better than 99 people that just hate Americans, and 1 that has the chance to kill them?
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
- Technically impossible. Any collar could be removed, one way or another. You’ve been reading too many Jack Vance novels.
- Would give Iraqis a very strong motivation to not become soldiers or police. Indeed, this proposal would probably shrink the roles of the Iraqi police and army to zero.
- Bad idea on general principles. Collars are for animals and sexual perverts, not normal people. This would be an assault on the human dignity of the Iraqis.
[/quote]
I’m personally in agreement. I’d go for total disarmament with instant death for Iraqis caught with weapons before something this complicated.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
- What other Muslim country is that? Every Muslim is Shi’ite, Sunni, or some splinter group, so any country would have some form of prejudice.
- The USA and most other modernized countries guarantee trial by “a jury of peers”, not a jury of non-peers from ten thousand miles away. There’s a reason for this. First, keeping trials local helps convince the populace that the system of justice is for their benefit. Second, jurors from halfway round the world can’t understand the social, economic, religious issues at work and thus are less fair than a local jury.
[/QUOTE]
Again, what’s our goal here? Establish Truth, Justice, and the American Way? If so, then we need to be pushing as hard as we can to ensure that there is a local, functional justice system. If we’re just trying to establish a working Iraq, then we don’t need one.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
- Public nudity or near-nudity is, again, for animals and sexual perverts rather than normal human beings. See response 3 to outside-of-box idea 1.
- For religious reasons, this wouldn’t go over. If you tell Iraqis that their options are:
A) Public humiliation by nudity.
B) Death.
They’ll most likely choose either B or C) Death that includes taking some American soldiers with me.
[/QUOTE]
It’s also not terribly effective; you’d need to destroy all forms of housing and vehicles and containers before you’d have removed everything which would let someone hide arms and explosives.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Now you’re responded by saying that this is a long-term project. Still hopeless. A religion that’s lasted fifteen centuries doesn’t vanish overnight, or even over twenty years.
[/QUOTE]
Y. You’d need 75-100 years and an effective genocide campaign at the very minimum, and that would only work within that region.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Lastly you say that sexual frustration and repression are a major driver of violence, and outside-of-box idea 3 will supposedly fix this. Forget about it. First of all, there’s no evidence that sexual frustration does lead to violence. Many earlier societies had constant sexual repression and low rates of violence; many still do. Second, many societies that are drenched in sex are still quite violent, the USA currently is the obvious example. Lastly, an individual with regular access to sex and sexual content can still be sexually frustrated. Indeed, I think that’s rather more likely.
My objections to outside-of-box idea 4 are quite similar to 3.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a statistician or an empire-builder, but I was under the impression that unmarried men were the ones most often behind systemic acts of violence such as the ones we’re facing in Iraq. I’d personally assume more of a self-selecting system in which obvious psychos have less luck attracting mates than any calming effect of regular nookie, but hey, if it could be shown to work and if we have no regard for such foolish, outmoded notions as civility and rights, then why not institute mandated coitus five times a day?
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I’m not a conservative so perhaps I’m out of line by answering this, but throughout the thread you’ve retreated to declaring your ideas better than Dubya’s current policy. We’re in no way required to take either Dubya’s policy or you four ouside-of-box ideas; that’s a classic false dichotomy. Furthermore, your ideas don’t address the current problems. American troops are torturing, raping, and murdering at will, though if we believe the media it’s just a few “bad eggs” who don’t represent the general attitude of the American military. None of your ideas would have any effect on those bad eggs.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say that the problem here (which both Evil Captor and I have both alluded to) is that we have not decided what our goals are and what we are and aren’t willing to do to acheive these goals. Given this, thinking ‘outside the box’ is an exercise in futility; there is no defined box which we are inside.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Now here’s my plan, which is definitely outside the box since no one who supports it would ever be allowed to participate in politics or the mainstream media at any level.
Step 1: Withdraw the occupying American troops from Iraq.
Step 2: Withdraw the occupying American troops from Saudi Arabia and other bases in the Muslim world.
Step 3: Issue formal apologies for the past three generations of American violence against Muslim nations.
Step 4: Implement an energy policy that weans America off foreign oil over the next five years.
Step 5: Let the Muslim world solve their own Allah-damned problems.
[/QUOTE]
This would, of course, be extraordinarily effective at ending U.S. involvement and expense in the region. My personal preference would be either for this sort of plan, if we assume that our national interests are a priority.
