Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just another days work for the "religion of peace"

I do feel bad for that poor woman, but if they do go ahead and kill her, i hope they kill her in the most grusome way possible live on national television, then childishly and needlessly call Carla Bruni a whore a few more times, and then admit they are after an atom bomb to scour the earth of Kaffirs.

Plenty more left leaning hippies will therefore be unable to keep their blinkers on anymore, and will be turned over to my way of thinking, and the world will be a much better place!

Welcome to the real world pinkos, its a hell of a ride!

mattyrm wrote:

Plenty more left leaning hippies will therefore be unable to keep their blinkers on anymore, and will be turned over to my way of thinking, and the world will be a much better place!

Welcome to the real world pinkos, its a hell of a ride!

May I dare ask what is your "way of thinking?"

At the risk of putting words into mattyrm's mouth, I believe he is one of the people who consider it would be an interesting experiment to try to bomb enemies out of the Stone Age.

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

So, if you were attacked, you wouldn't attempt to defend yourself?

If you believe that you have the right to defend yourself, and are willing to use force in order to so, then you are willing to enforce a moral judgment using force.

A moral judgment is different from choosing to defend yourself.

Not really. You're judging that you have the moral right to inflict harm on another to prevent them from harming you. You have decided that your right to not be harmed is greater than theirs.

Exactly. A pacifist might choose not to inflict harm on another even in self-defense. In political situations, with media watching, this can sometimes be effective. For example, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. It might work out in a personal assault too, if you have witnesses and can avoid serious harm. If you haven't inflicted any damage on the other guy, it tends to be a pretty open & shut case in terms of who was at fault.

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

Is "Better late than never" seriously your argument here?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

It was outlawed in the UK in 1991.

Huh? Wow, us Aussies beat you in that regard by a good 10 years or so. I think.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

Is "Better late than never" seriously your argument here?

I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

Wait, so Carla Bruni ISN'T a whore?

Who's tits have I seen, then?

Until this point I'd never heard of zealotry against injustice being described as a bad thing.

It's all about signal to noise. If you scream loudly about every single thing, it diminishes the perceived significance of the things you scream about. If you're sometimes talking about important things, then you're basically serving as an excercise in diminishing important things. I view AI that way.

For example, they scream about the DPRK. Then they scream about Abu Ghraib. And while I agree that Abu Ghraib was a bad thing, it's basically trivial when compared to what happens daily in the DPRK, or virtually any other 3rd world nation.

You're ignoring the option to put a person in maximum security for the rest of his life. We can lock people away with no chance or escape and no chance of ever harming anyone again.

Yes and no. In some cases, they'll harm other inmates or guards. You can run such a tight ship that this is impossible, but that's expensive.

And if it's expensive, then you're spending money to incarcerate that guy that you could have spent taking care of somebody else, and maybe they die as a result.

All that said, yes, I was ignoring options and wasn't explaining why... So here's why: I've heard it explained statistically, that if we just executed everyone we were reasonably sure was a murderer, then fewer innocent people would be killed in the net.

I'm not saying that should be an appealing option, but it's still worth thinking through, just to have the datapoint to consider. I'm not necessarily even saying it's true, I'm just saying I heard it explained in a way that was pretty convincing, and if it's interesting enough, I'm sure I can dig it up.

You are right that in terms of sheer scale it isn't that great, so why feel the need to give the state that power at all?

Actually, I agree, I think that if we intend to use the death penalty at the rate we currently do, then we should ban it. It's better to get the PR win than it is to bother killing 35 people a year. It'd also probably save money.

But I also don't think we should be executing 35 people a year. I think we should be executing many, many more. Or, at least, I would hope that we could be doing so, and justly. My primary consideration is proof. If there is ironclad proof, I am in favor of the death penalty for many crimes. For example, if a man violently rapes a woman (or a man for that matter), and it's proven beyond any doubt, then they should be executed. I simply don't believe that this sort of person is going to ever participate positively in society. If the proof is there, and it's TRULY incontrovertible, then I would support execution for lesser crimes than currently allow for it.

Contingent to that, there would also have to be a cost savings. If it costs more in legal bills to get the execution than to just incarcerate the person, then why bother? It's not about punishment, in my opinion. I don't feel a need to "get back" at the criminal. I just don't want to deal with them anymore. I want them gone. If there was a planet where they could go, and never bother this world again, wonderful, go there. Hey, maybe Australia...

So, realistically, I'm in favor of banning the death sentence. But from a moral perspective, I think it's justifiable to execute people for some "lesser" crimes, such as rape, kidnapping, calculated brutality, child molestation, etc. If we had a legal system that I felt confidence in, and seemed capable of reaching correct, consistent verdicts, I'd be in favor of a large volume of executions.

The extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa certainly argues otherwise.

Well, the African outlook on sex is far more positive than that of the West. We're much more puritanical. Certainly there are Muslim nations in Africa, but the whole continent is living in a much more sex-positive context. It's just not as "scary" as it is for Westerners.

WarOne wrote:So I cannot say "liberals have negative feelings toward Glenn Beck?"

Yeah, you can. My earlier comment probably wasn't that accurate. It's just... you have to be very careful with the generalisations. For a group like, say, American liberals, they're united in their opposition to the Republicans and their noise machine, so it'd be reasonable to say that liberals don't like Glenn Beck. But every step you take away from the core elements of the group, the less likely a generalisation is going to be accurate.

Once you get to something like 'liberals think every part of another culture should be respected' you're a mile away from their core beliefs and well into stereotyping.

I don't know how smart you think I am, but I am not as smart as you. Generalizations make my world a better place to place things into perspective and say things within the span of a casual conversation. I cannot take the time I have to properly research something and come to a concluded and well seasoned statment backed by hundreds of hours of investigative and sound information processing.

Sure, and generalisations are useful. Just be careful the generalisation is at least generally true, and not just something that makes for an easier worldview. In this case the problem is that it isn't a belief generally held by liberals.

Without generalizations, I would not be able to say things like "America won World War II" without having to interject thnigs like "and the British victory in the Battle of Britain helped" and the "grinding campaigning of the Eastern Front by Soviet forces against an overconfident and micromanaged German army."

Really fighting the urge to start that whole 'actually the Soviets beat the Germans' argument all over again

But in the end, both nations must struggle against the Western/Non-Western World axis of thought.

In very different ways, though, yeah?

Do you think that Iran will stop in the first event?

Stop which, the nuke program or the stoning?

WarOne wrote:Correct. That is exactly what I did to illustrate the fact that liberals cannot stop the death of this woman in Iran.

Sure, but no-one can stop the death of this woman. What can be done is to stop further stonings down the line.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

The point is that while it is perfectly reasonable to assess another country's failings, it is useless to do so in a manner which just places one's own country on a pedestal.

The issue of being unable to refuse consent in Iran is a serious issue, but one that is not helped by people feigning moral outrage that a woman can be legally raped. I am left wondering how many people claiming to be outraged over the situation in Iran were among those who protested against the same when it was legal here.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

The point is that while it is perfectly reasonable to assess another country's failings, it is useless to do so in a manner which just places one's own country on a pedestal.

The issue of being unable to refuse consent in Iran is a serious issue, but one that is not helped by people feigning moral outrage that a woman can be legally raped. I am left wondering how many people claiming to be outraged over the situation in Iran were among those who protested against the same when it was legal here.

I didn't realize that I was putting my country on a pedestal while making those statements, though I do consider it to be a better place to live than many others.

Since it was apparently made a criminal offense in 1976 I guess you're right. I wasn't protesting it as I wasn't born until 5 years later.

Also, I'm going to leave "spousal rape" in my search box to concern my wife.

Monster Rain wrote:I didn't realize that I was putting my country on a pedestal while making those statements, though I do consider it to be a better place to live than many others.

Didn't mean to put it on you personally. I apologise for implying that. I meant it in a general sense, that it is fine to acknowledge problems in other countries, and destructive to pick out failings elsewhere as a way explaining why we are good and they are bad.

And yeah, your country is one of the best places to live. Mine is as well, we should acknowledge how lucky we are.

Since it was apparently made a criminal offense in 1976 I guess you're right. I wasn't protesting it as I wasn't born until 5 years later.

Also, I'm going to leave "spousal rape" in my search box to concern my wife.

Relapse wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
Well, you see, the thing about that is they really are. Everyone who makes the call to bomb anything knows for a fact that the majority of bombs dropped will miss their targets and hit civilians, and they're perfectly okay with that.

I see you've never been in the military or know much about bombing missions.

Really because... "Analysts say the new bombs should be highly accurate because they rely on satellites rather than lasers, giving them an all-weather capability lacking in earlier versions of smart munitions.

Twenty-five individual aim points were targeted and the Pentagon can only confirm damage at eight of them.

One official, quoted in the Washington Post, said he had been told the bombs missed by an average of more than 100 yards (metres).

Checks are now being carried out to see if this might have been due to a software error.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon and the Royal Air Force insist that other weapons used against vital communications nodes or junctions were much more successful.

The RAF used older laser-guided bombs (which had about a 40 percent hit rate during their use in Kosovo) to hit a single target array and a Ministry of Defence spokesman in London told the BBC that they were "entirely content with their success rate". "

I don't know about you, but I believe that the Pentagon and the RAF probably know MUCH more about the bombing runs that they conducted than either you or I. Also, I think being part of the military would probably have a negative effect on how much I actually knew about the success of bombing runs. (Assuming I wasn't in a high position.)

I mean, to put it simply, they seem to have aimed at 25 places and only even damaged eight? Not very good odds there. I mean, that doesn't even mean eight hit on target, just that they did SOME damage to the target. Military policy was clearly outlined by Rumsfeld as "The force necessary, plus some."

That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

So what are things like in Narnia, or whatever imaginary land you seem to seem to be posting from where facts are just made up on the spur of the moment?

CT GAMER wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

None have been PROVEN. But for some there are very heavy evidence agaisnt them. go look up the case of todd willingham. The new yorker has a great artical on it. read it. Oh dont forget there have been people proven innocent who were on death row
But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
A moral judgment is different from choosing to defend yourself.

Notice that I said "...believe that you have the right to defend yourself...", not "...choose to defend yourself..." Rights are moral constructs, and if you believe that you have the right to defend yourself you have made a moral judgment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

The US was never a party to the ICC. Clinton signed the Rome statute, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification; ostensibly because he reserved the right of the government to observe the court's function. Bush II, because of his neoconservative leanings, had no intention of ever submitting the statute for Senatorial review and so suspended Clinton's signature of the treaty in order to require any future President to resign the document.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
One official, quoted in the Washington Post, said he had been told the bombs missed by an average of more than 100 yards (metres).

The RAF used older laser-guided bombs (which had about a 40 percent hit rate during their use in Kosovo) to hit a single target array and a Ministry of Defence spokesman in London told the BBC that they were "entirely content with their success rate". "

I don't know about you, but I believe that the Pentagon and the RAF probably know MUCH more about the bombing runs that they conducted than either you or I. Also, I think being part of the military would probably have a negative effect on how much I actually knew about the success of bombing runs. (Assuming I wasn't in a high position.)

You know that missing a target is not the same as missing a target and hitting civilians, which is what you initially claimed, right? Indeed, all you've ostensibly supported is that two separate typos of munition miss their targets the majority of the time. You still need to support the claim that the majority of all bombs miss their targets, and that at leas the majority of those misses hit civilians.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
I mean, to put it simply, they seem to have aimed at 25 places and only even damaged eight? Not very good odds there. I mean, that doesn't even mean eight hit on target, just that they did SOME damage to the target. Military policy was clearly outlined by Rumsfeld as "The force necessary, plus some."

Yes, because not hitting your target every time is part of warfare. For example, 40% is actually a very good accuracy rate for gravity bombs.

People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

garret wrote:But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Because war will hurt women like the one who going to be stoned as much as it'll hurt anyone else. Because the best way we can affect reform is with soft power.

For feth's sake. We're not even fully withdrawn from Iraq and it's almost been forgotten. We're already starting the cycle again.

sebster wrote:

garret wrote:But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Because war will hurt women like the one who going to be stoned as much as it'll hurt anyone else. Because the best way we can affect reform is with soft power.

For feth's sake. We're not even fully withdrawn from Iraq and it's almost been forgotten. We're already starting the cycle again.

Wasn't there some saying that had something to do with History and learning and repetition?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

Is "Better late than never" seriously your argument here?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

It was outlawed in the UK in 1991.

Huh? Wow, us Aussies beat you in that regard by a good 10 years or so. I think.

Then the Soviets beat you Aussies by 20 years, and the Poles beat the Sovs by nearly 40 years.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashUSAR wrote:People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

That's a good philosophy. It absolves you of doing anything positive, and it is self-fulfilling so you can prove it right.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

It was outlawed in the UK in 1991.

Huh? Wow, us Aussies beat you in that regard by a good 10 years or so. I think.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wasn't there some saying that had something to do with History and learning and repetition?

I had always figured the first screw up would at least be history before we started to forget it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashUSAR wrote:People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

Ethics is about the use of power. A simple way to justify not doing anything good is just to pretend you have no power.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wasn't there some saying that had something to do with History and learning and repetition?

I had always figured the first screw up would at least be history before we started to forget it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashUSAR wrote:People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

Ethics is about the use of power. A simple way to justify not doing anything good is just to pretend you have no power.

Go to sleep. I just got back from 14 hours of work and I'll debate you tomorrow.

Now off.

Kilkrazy wrote:At the risk of putting words into mattyrm's mouth, I believe he is one of the people who consider it would be an interesting experiment to try to bomb enemies out of the Stone Age.

Meh.

Kill them all, may the Immortal Emperor of Mankind grant mercy upon their heathen souls...

sebster wrote:

garret wrote:But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Because war will hurt women like the one who going to be stoned as much as it'll hurt anyone else. Because the best way we can affect reform is with soft power.

Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years? The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better. I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'. If the coalition had rolled up and said:

'Right, this country is a mess - it's corrupt, violent and a danger to both it's neighbours and the wider world. People are starving, they have very little access to clean drinking water or medicine. We are going to assume control of the country and administrate it for the forseeable future in order to secure those things in the short term, and make Iraq a viable country in the long term. We will do this by underwriting its national debt, expanding its infrastructure and getting its industry on its feet. This will provide jobs for people and revenue for rebuilding. For the time being, democracy is suspended but we will put in place a provisional constitution which will guarantee Iraqi human rights, and we will invite independent monitors into the country to ensure that these rights are upheld. As the country increases in stability, we will begin the gradual devolution of some powers to local assemblies, bodies which will be democratically-elected, although executive power and authority will be administered by the coalition for as long as we are in charge of Iraqi affairs. This could be for anything up to and exceeding 100 years. We are not going anywhere. We understand that the Iraqi people are a proud race, but you lost. You are our vanquished enemy. The sooner you make your peace with this, the happier everyone will be and Iraq will move forward to a prosperous and secure future.'

...I personally think we would have had a better chance of peace in Iraq. After all, a similar strategy worked in West Germany.

And Japan.

Uh-huh.

Albatross wrote:Wait, so Carla Bruni ISN'T a whore?

Who's tits have I seen, then?

lol.

Albatross wrote:Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years?

So... we organise a coup because we don't like that Iran voted in a democracy, and when our puppet is overthrown by a theocracy we sponsor a tyrant in the neighbouring country to invade and kill a few hundred thousand people. All that achieves nothing a more firmly entrenched religious power block. But since then it's been 25 years of soft power, and what have we got for it?!

If nothing else, we really need to realise that we keep fething up the use of hard power in the Middle East, so we really ought to stop using it.

The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better.

The stoning has been suspended, and without a bomb being dropped.

I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'.

No, it went to gak because basic elements of order and control were not undertaken, and because key players were not brought on board or even identified.

And your plan is lovely, but it really doesn't address what went substantially wrong in Iraq. Nothing that went wrong would have been solved by telling people they were going to be in Iraq for a long time.