Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator

If you really want to create a stable country, find the Stalin of Afghanistan and put him to work. It would be bloodly, messing and very undemocratic, but it will get the job done. This Stalin pretty much does this -

Quote:

---

From what everyone hear has been saying the only way to setup at least a basic democracy with basic rights is rule with an iron fist for 20-30 year whilst spending heavily on infrastruture, education and job creation. Education to include some basic adult education also. Possibly would need to bribe the warlords out of exsistence and maybe satisfy the more extreme members of the population by making the push to all the rights we enjoy here a slow gradual one...

---

However, the biggest problem with this, is also this -

Quote:

---

Can we change all this? Sure.

Can we do so in a fashion that will be: fast enough to suit our 24-hour news cycle medias?
Bloodless enough (among our own) to prevent war weariness/"chuck it all-ism?"
Boodless enough (among the locals) not to be renowned for our brutality?
Honorably enough to suit the democratic ideals the West espouses?

---

You could also do the biblical version, which is kill every male you find in the country, import a bunch of your own males to take their place. However, you will end up with international condemnation and in several international courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

If you really want to create a stable country, find the Stalin of Afghanistan and put him to work. It would be bloodly, messing and very undemocratic, but it will get the job done. This Stalin pretty much does this

---

He was already there. He's called the Taliban.

But that is against American interests !?%&**@~#

You wasn't meant to point that out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm

Uh oh. :no:

This wont win anyone over in supporting the war.

I hear the Right-wing going "Just NUKE THEM!!!!!" as we speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

He was already there. He's called the Taliban.

---

Staliban!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The invasion of Afghanistan was all about avenging 911. Which is fair enough. If one wants to be respected, if one is attacked like that, it's fair game to go to the origin of the attacks, and smash things up a bit. The problem is extending that mission to incorporate other parameters of success, but still using the justification of 911.

---

Indeed. Three sentences summing up where we were, and where we are ("we" being US + NATO).

Declare victory (and let everybody snicker). Hammer out a Status of Forces Agreement, and Overflight and Landing Rights protocols with Kabul. Thank our NATO allies profusely. And come home.

When/If Osama b.L. pops up, nail him. Continue drying up terror money. This could all be accomplished by New Year's Eve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I hear the Right-wing going "Just NUKE THEM!!!!!" as we speak.

---

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

*rubbish post*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

---

That terrorism is somehow a treath is the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

---

IF we get attacked again, then it will be time to perform some surface nuclear testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

IF we get attacked again, then it will be time to perform some surface nuclear testing.

---

Because...

- It wouldn't cause much damage to any terrorists?
- It would kill a bunch of completely innocent civilians?
- It would kill the enviroment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because...

- It wouldn't cause much damage to any terrorists?
- It would kill a bunch of completely innocent civilians?
- It would kill the enviroment?

---

It would put the fear of God into any country stupid enough to host terrorists.

There you go Furunculus. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It would put the fear of God into any country stupid enough to host terrorists.

---

So... By demonstrating that you're incapable of hurting anyone who's hurting you, you think that people are going to be afraid of hurting you...?

Logic fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So... By demonstrating that you're incapable of hurting anyone who's hurting you, you think that people are going to be afraid of hurting you...?

Logic fails.

---

Logic succeeds. You host terrorists --> you get nuked.

The war on terror, a battle for hearts and minds largely... will not be won by nuclear weaponary, you may scare one or two or the more moderate national leaders but they are the kind of people that could be swayed without insanity... but you will be handing the terrorists thier dream...

Don't you think Al-Qaeda would like nothing more than a mushroom cloud or two in the middle east... if they could get a decent number of recruits out of the regular crap we cause in the middle east imagine after we supply them that propaganda!

So countries get nuked for being located in the Middle East? The 9/11 bombings were done by Saudis, and there hasn't been much reaction to them. Hell, weren't the bombings in the London and Madrid done by nationals of both countries? Nuke 'em too, they've got terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Logic succeeds. You host terrorists --> you get nuked.

---

So.... Just what are you proposing to do if the nation in question are unable to defeat said terrorists? Bomb 'em just for show?

There are terrorists in America...

Let's give him the red button while he thinks it over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... Just what are you proposing to do if the nation in question are unable to defeat said terrorists? Bomb 'em just for show?

---

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

---

And again, that will accomplish....what? The nation you're proposing to bomb is AGAINST terrorism already...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And again, that will accomplish....what? The nation you're proposing to bomb is AGAINST terrorism already...

---

It will show very vividly, that "being against terrorism" while hosting terrorists is not a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

---

Oh, where to start:

• It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
• There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
• In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
• Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh, where to start:

• It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
• There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
• In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
• Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.

---

Let's see.

* It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
Then we'll bomb some more. The dead can be as angry as they wanna be.

* There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
A few tactical nukes or one strategic depending on the situation.

* In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Radiation ignores terrain.

* Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.
Pariah? If self-defense is wrong then I don't wanna be right.

rvg doesn't appear to be acknowledging anyone on this thread, so I think it's safe to assume that ignoring him would be a good idea. Retorting to hear the exact same phrase doesn't seem to be a good use of time.

Quote:

---

* It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
Then we'll bomb some more. The dead can be as angry as they wanna be.

* There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
A few tactical nukes or one strategic depending on the situation.

* In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Radiation ignores terrain.

* Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.
Pariah? If self-defense is wrong then I don't wanna be right.

---

Maybe the rest of the world should think about nuking America, for self defense?

I wouldn't have objected to a well-placed nuclear weapon or two blowing up over the mountains where we knew that Osama was hiding with fellow al-Qaeda insurgents, but I think the Russians and Chinese might have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I wouldn't have objected to a well-placed nuclear weapon or two blowing up over the mountains where we knew that Osama was hiding with fellow al-Qaeda insurgents, but I think the Russians and Chinese might have.

---

The thing is, EMFM, we don't know where OBL is hiding... And that mountain range is quite large. The only way to get OBL, if he's even hiding in those mountains, with a nuclear bomb, would be to carpet bomb the entire mountain range.

And that, my friend, is insanity.

Didn't Osama Bin Laden only have two or so years to live, at 9/11 ?