Middle East Diplomacy: The Mongol Method?

[QuoVadisNation]

First of all,
"the Mongol method" (i.e, wholesale slaughter of the population, specially, of the population from which suicide bombers derive)

By picking on democracies, terrorists from the region can be reasonably sure that their adversaries will stop short of "the Mongol method". Even so, suicide campaigns are often designed to madden their victims into inflicting collective punishment, thus further radicalizing the terrorists' actual or potential supporters, who might otherwise be repulsed by the carnage that such extreme violence causes.

I'm well aware of the immediate objections about the Mongol method, such as "that's horrible", or "you monster!", or "don't you think the U.N. works?" But seriously, in your opinions, what would be the good and bad from implementing it considering the ineffectiveness of "stopping short?"

 

[GinandTonic]

A genocide of 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 would be a bad thing. That would be five-six WW2's. 40-50 times the Jews who died in the holocaust. 20-25 times all those who died in the camps. Somewhere between 25 and 60 of Stalin's famines. This would be about the same as killing every American excepting Calafornians.

 

[Kozmos]

If

ME = glass craters

then Win!

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

First of all,
"the Mongol method" (i.e, wholesale slaughter of the population, specially, of the population from which suicide bombers derive)

By picking on democracies, terrorists from the region can be reasonably sure that their adversaries will stop short of "the Mongol method". Even so, suicide campaigns are often designed to madden their victims into inflicting collective punishment, thus further radicalizing the terrorists' actual or potential supporters, who might otherwise be repulsed by the carnage that such extreme violence causes.

I'm well aware of the immediate objections about the Mongol method, such as "that's horrible", or "you monster!", or "don't you think the U.N. works?" But seriously, in your opinions, what would be the good and bad from implementing it considering the ineffectiveness of "stopping short?"

Yes, and remember to pile up the skulls.

 

[Bill3000]

Good - quick solution to an annoying problem. And ultimately, given the fact that advocating such a measure would be advocating the largest genocide in the entire world, terrorism in comparison is nothing more than "annoying", if not "not a problem".

Bad - You'll have the entire world immediately embargo, if not outright declare war, on the perpetrator. You'll only create more enemies than you would be wiping them all out, and unlike the terrorists, it would be ones that can be more than something that is ultimately a mere nuisance on the well-being of a nation. I don't really think that the United States can survive the entire world going against it and stay in the same shape afterwards, especially since the massive protests that would occur within the United States could probably ultimately lead to a collapse of the nation. The anger created by the entire world would be far greater than any anger that a terrorist would have.

We do have the means to do this, of course. But actually doing it would most likely destroy the US, if not the world (given the nuclear war that would most likely occur). Such a rash measure isn't done not merely for the sake of being the better man when it comes to morality - but because of the incredibly horrible consequences that would result.

 

[Swedishguy]

Consider one thing:

Spoiler Think before pushin'! :

The mongols DID conquer asia

 

[Guangxi]

Kharash?
goodbye moral high ground.
goodbye pretty much every ally.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.
-Henry Louis Mencken


That pretty much says it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually, the Mongols usually use terrorism/genocide as a last resort, after they have exhausted their diplomatic options and if the enemy continues to resist. They will call on cities to surrender. If they didn't then they can expect no mercy, if they did then they're very much left alone aside from paying a few taxes to the Mongols.

Even so, applying the "Mongol Method" to the Mid east problem would eventually result in the death of around 500,000,000 people, or around 9% of the world's population, or even more if the countries attacked decided to retaliate the same way. The Middle East will be turned into a wasteland, and the world's remaining countries would be deprived of much of their oil and natural gas supplies, at least for a period of 3 - 5 years as the infrastructure in the area are rebuilt. Many of the world's cultural, historical, scientific heritage would be gone.

Bad idea, yes?

 

[Naval Power]

I can see a historical parallel between the Mongols destroying the cult of assassins and the US attempting to destroy the modern day equivalent. We just need to finish the job like the Mongols did. The Mongols did the world a favor in their time, we should do the same despite all the criticism.

 

[Phlegmak]

First of all,
"the Mongol method" (i.e, wholesale slaughter of the population, specially, of the population from which suicide bombers derive)

By picking on democracies, terrorists from the region can be reasonably sure that their adversaries will stop short of "the Mongol method". Even so, suicide campaigns are often designed to madden their victims into inflicting collective punishment, thus further radicalizing the terrorists' actual or potential supporters, who might otherwise be repulsed by the carnage that such extreme violence causes.

I'm well aware of the immediate objections about the Mongol method, such as "that's horrible", or "you monster!", or "don't you think the U.N. works?" But seriously, in your opinions, what would be the good and bad from implementing it considering the ineffectiveness of "stopping short?"

Terrorists DON'T pick on democracies exclusively. They pick on tyrranies often enough. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have had their share of recent terrorism. Russia has to deal with it also. The only notable nontyrranical nations that have plenty of terrorism that I can think of are Lebanon, Israel, and India. Maybe you could include Phillipines. Thailand? has some Muslim rebels that are doing some bad things too, but I don't think Thailand is considered a "democracy".

I really don't see how doing a Joshua-vs.-Jericho to anyone can be considered a good thing.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, you mean besides the point that it completely goes against the entire goal for being in the Middle East in the first place, or besides that?

 

[Ramius75]

Then will there be a Mongol method on the "mongols" then ??

While the Mongols did conquered most of Asia they did a very bad job of staying and administrative maybe becoz of their lack of understanding of the culture and pretty much illiterate. The Chinese at that time despise the Mongol invaded and ultimately they dont last and ended sinizied partially instead.

I think its wrong to learn from the wrong lesson.

 

[Little Raven]

Bloody brilliant! And while we're at it, we should probably restructure our armed forces to be an almost entirely cavalry based army with an emphasis on mounted archers. After all, it worked for the Monguls, and they conquered Persia!



Or perhaps what worked well 800 years ago might not prove to be as effective today.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Terrorists DON'T pick on democracies exclusively. They pick on tyrranies often enough. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have had their share of recent terrorism. Russia has to deal with it also. The only notable nontyrranical nations that have plenty of terrorism that I can think of are Lebanon, Israel, and India. Maybe you could include Phillipines. Thailand? has some Muslim rebels that are doing some bad things too, but I don't think Thailand is considered a "democracy".

Don't forget China, but I tend to sympathize with those ones.

 

[Elrohir]

This method would probably work in eliminating Middle Eastern terrorism - but only by the commission of a much more heinous crime than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream. No thanks, I'd like to keep the moral high ground.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I can see a historical parallel between the Mongols destroying the cult of assassins and the US attempting to destroy the modern day equivalent. We just need to finish the job like the Mongols did. The Mongols did the world a favor in their time, we should do the same despite all the criticism.

Now tell me, what are mongols now remembered best for? Rape, Murder and Genocide, or getting rid of a cult?

 

[Kraznaya]

First of all,
"the Mongol method" (i.e, wholesale slaughter of the population, specially, of the population from which suicide bombers derive)

By picking on democracies, terrorists from the region can be reasonably sure that their adversaries will stop short of "the Mongol method". Even so, suicide campaigns are often designed to madden their victims into inflicting collective punishment, thus further radicalizing the terrorists' actual or potential supporters, who might otherwise be repulsed by the carnage that such extreme violence causes.

I'm well aware of the immediate objections about the Mongol method, such as "that's horrible", or "you monster!", or "don't you think the U.N. works?" But seriously, in your opinions, what would be the good and bad from implementing it considering the ineffectiveness of "stopping short?"

If you want to your country to splinter, lose all world power, and be forever hated as barbarians for the rest of time.

 

[Princeps]

The only notable nontyrranical nations that have plenty of terrorism that I can think of are .... Israel...

Israel is far more tyrannical than Pakistan or many other non-democracies that have been targeted by "terrorism".

 

[Chris1111]

This thread reminds me of an article in my local paper about a month back. Some of it applies and some doesn't...

"Ghengis Khan knew how to handle Iraq"
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/...070107/NEWS/701070332&SearchID=73268334589965

In his final televised speech to the Iraqi people in 2003, Saddam Hussein denounced the invading Americans as "the Mongols of this age," a reference to the last time infidels had conquered his country, in 1258.

But the comparison isn't very apt - unlike the Mongols, the Americans don't have the organizational genius of Genghis Khan. In the 13th century, Temujin - better known by his title, Genghis Khan ( "world leader") - headed a tribal nation smaller than the workforce of Wal-Mart, yet he conquered and ruled more people than anyone in history.

After Genghis Khan's death, his grandson, Hulegu, further expanded the empire, easily conquering most of the Middle East and achieving the Mongols' aim: the establishment of a trade corridor from Korea on the Pacific to Syria on the Mediterranean, one part of their goal of controlling the world.

So that every warrior knew his place within the struggle, Genghis Khan began each campaign with meetings to communicate to his approximately 100,000 soldiers where and why they would fight. The legal justification for the Mongol invasion of Iraq derived from the reluctance of the caliph of Baghdad to control the Shiite Cult of the Assassins, whom the Mongols accused of attempting to kill their khan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And while the violence continues, the U.S. can't come close to establishing a government that rivals what the Mongols achieved. They exercised a genius for speaking to people in terms that they understood. When conquering Muslims, Genghis Khan always announced that Allah willed the Mongol victory as divine punishment; to resist the Mongols was to defy the will of God.

imagine the hell that would erupt if Bush said, Saddam's defeat was the will of Allah...
---------




---------------
Fundamentalist Muslims look back at Mongol secularism as a scourge. But, although U.S. rule in Iraq has produced a constant flow of refugees, particularly religious minorities, under Mongol rule Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Buddhist immigrants poured into the newly conquered Iraq to live under the Great Law of Genghis Khan.
-------------------

By the time of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the political achievements of the Mongols had been forgotten, and only the destructive fury of their wars was remembered.

Yet under the Mongols - and the legacy of Genghis Khan - Iraq enjoyed a century of peace and a renaissance that brought the region to a level of prosperity and cultural sophistication higher than it enjoyed before or after. Any country with a bent for empire could do worse than learn from Genghis Khan.
---------------------------